Traffic Congestion

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Most mathematical modelling used to guide our economy is simplified and only modified when it becomes so out of touch that it is dangerous.
When the Atlantic cod fishery collapsed the model being used to set fishing quotas was still suggesting the fishery was healthy. In retrospect it seems a kind of madness to have kept using it.
Traffic modelling in Australia is now similarly out of touch. A recent study by the Bureau of Transport Industry and Resource Economics modelled the future of traffic in Australian cities. If it had been a mere academic study it would not be dangerous, but it is now being used to justify massive road spending.
The report suggests that travel times will blow out and road congestion will cost the economy more than A$50 billion. Congestion, it seems, is out of control and will engulf us all, with terrible economic consequences for Australian cities.
<h2>Modelling relies on heroic growth assumptions</h2>
In order to reach these numbers the report had to make assumptions about growth trends in car use per capita. The high-growth scenario is included in the red box in Figure 1 below.
<a href="/images/2016/01/18/image-20160113-8411-b2a1bi.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/01/18/image-20160113-8411-b2a1bi.jpg" alt="">
As is common in such modelling, a low-growth scenario is also modelled and then the future is taken to be in the middle.
The high-growth scenario can be seen to reverse a trend in car use per capita that appeared to be well set after a peak in 2003-04. This peak car phenomenon has been found in all developed cities and has been analysed by many commentators including ourselves.
Understanding the peak car phenomenon would appear to be a basic requirement before attempting future scenarios that wipe it out completely. However, this report has not ventured into such questions. Instead, it continues the methodology used for the past 30 years.
<h2>Travel time reality means car use has peaked</h2>
The fundamental problem is that the model does not understand how cities work. Travel time is seen as something that just expands as our cities of car-dependent suburbs grow outwards.
However, the Marchetti travel time budget of just over an hour on average has been found to apply universally across all cities. Some people can go beyond an hour and some much less, but the average everywhere is an hour. This has been found over and over to apply in every city.
If people find it hard to live with so much time “wasted”, they move to somewhere more within their travel time budget. If the overall options in housing, jobs and travel become so dysfunctional that people are forced to travel beyond their time budget then the issue becomes highly political: elections are fought over infrastructure and housing options. Cities adjust; they don’t keep expanding travel time.
It is possible to understand the global peak car phenomenon in terms of cities hitting the Marchetti wall. In our data, cities everywhere began to grow in their traffic congestion whether or not they built freeways or extra road capacity. This was because these just filled very quickly.
<h2>Rail projects unclog the urban arteries</h2>
Rail projects, however, could go around, over or under the traffic. Hence, over the past 30 years, rail lines have become more travel-time-efficient than traffic arteries. Many people, especially the young and wealthy, began to move back into areas where public transport was well provided.
The rejuvenation of central and inner areas is not just because they are cool and trendy but because they offer reduced travel time. Car use per capita goes down when there is less need to travel, especially by car.
This model does not consider this to be significant enough to consider in forecasting scenarios for Australian cities. It crudely projects a totally car-based-and-growing set of futures. It barely considers the remarkable global turnaround in the building of rail systems and the rejuvenation of cities.
Scenarios where these urban trends are considered to continue (rather than suddenly dying as suggested by Figure 1, followed by inevitable growth in car use) would make much more sense. This is the way planning is being done in cities like London.
The evidence in London and other cities – with good public transport alternatives and competitive door-to-door journey times – is that with fixed road capacity traffic volumes stay constant (or slightly decline). All the growth goes on to public transport and the car-based share of travel falls – down from 46% for residents of London in the 1990s to 32% now.
The scenarios for London are therefore all about how best to build public transport and land-use options that can enable economic growth to occur sustainably, rather than trying to increase road capacity. Similar considerations can be seen to be happening elsewhere around the world.
<h2>Did an ‘Abbott effect’ skew the modelling?</h2>
So why have we refused to change our modelling and are still trying to justify massive road capacity increases?
Traffic modelling reports like this take about two years to produce. What was happening around two years ago was the election of Tony Abbott with his commitment to spend some A$40 billion on urban roads and nothing on urban rail.
Huge road projects in Melbourne (East-West Link), Sydney (West Connex), Brisbane (Gateway) and Perth (Freight Link) were all announced before any assessment. Their rationale was very shaky and most of these projects have now either failed or are failing.
Each road project also has large impacts on their urban economies. These are dangerous as they destroy so much of the urban fabric necessary for rejuvenation and take away the ability of governments to pay for the more important urban rail projects on their agendas.
The upturn in the graphs in Figure 1 seems to be an Abbott effect. It is rather amusing now that this report came out just as Malcolm Turnbull took over and began talking up urban rail and urban regeneration.
Such models should be put into the museum and as a better sense of where our cities can be going. This report can be easily passed over, but if the thinking behind it stays the impact on our cities will be very damaging.
 
Peter Newman is professor of sustainability, Curtin University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-newman-1858" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

The ‘one-hour rule’ for city travel - traffic modelling and the Abbott effect in policy madness

<html><body>
Crawling along in low gear, Melbourne drivers often comfort themselves with the thought that at least they’re not in Sydney, where “everyone knows” traffic delays are longer and even more frustrating. Sorry, Melburnians, but you’re kidding yourselves.
New analysis for a forthcoming report by the Grattan Institute debunks several myths about traffic congestion in Australia’s biggest cities – including the conventional wisdom that Sydney-siders are doing it tougher.
Sydney may have <a href="">340,000 more people</a> and an enormous harbour constricting movements from one part of the city to another, but Melbourne is pretty much on a par when it comes to congestion.
<h2>Twin pictures of congestion</h2>
Chart 1 shows the delay that an average CBD commuter endures in Sydney and Melbourne, compared to how long it would take to do the trip in the early hours of the morning when the only constraints are traffic lights and speed limits.
<a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/175777/area14mp/file-20170627-21898-1mga1nj.PNG"><img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/175777/width754/file-20170627-21898-1mga1nj.PNG" alt=""></a> Data for more than 300 routes travelling to and from the CBD were collected 25 times each day over about 12 weeks between March and June 2017. Grattan analysis of Google Maps data, Author provided
In the morning peak, an average Melbourne CBD commuting trip takes close to 70% longer than it would in the middle of the night. The 11-kilometre trip from Brighton takes an extra 13 minutes, and the 30km trip from Caroline Springs an extra 20 minutes. The 9km from Coburg take an extra 14 minutes, while the 17km from Doncaster take an extra 20 minutes.
It’s similar in Sydney. The average morning commute to the CBD takes 50-60% longer than it would in the middle of the night. The 40km trip from Liverpool takes an extra 32 minutes, while a trip of similar length from Blacktown typically takes an extra 20. Driving the 17km from Manly takes an extra 21 minutes, while the 7km trip from the airport takes an extra 12.
It doesn’t take quite as long to get home from the city. In the afternoon peak, an average trip takes up to 60% longer than it would in the middle of the night. But it’s harder to avoid the delay: peak “hour” is much longer in the evening than in the morning. Any time from 3.30pm to 6pm you can expect your trip to take at least 40% longer.
We found these patterns by analysing Google Maps estimates of travel times for more than 300 routes across Sydney and Melbourne. The data include 25 travel-time estimates every day for several months. This includes commutes to the CBD and other employment centres, important freight routes, shorter trips within the inner, middle and outer rings, and cross-city trips.
<h2>So which drivers have the worst run?</h2>
Here’s a finding that might surprise drivers who have to crawl over the West Gate Bridge to get to and from work: the worst place to commute to Melbourne’s CBD is not from the rapidly growing western suburbs, but from the northeastern suburbs. That probably won’t surprise you if your commute includes the Eastern Freeway.
Chart 2 shows the typical delay for commuters coming to Melbourne’s CBD from the southeast, northeast, north, south and west. The northeast is the stand-out worst performer, as those who live in Doncaster, Heidelberg and beyond know all too well. Interestingly, people commuting from the west face much more modest delays.
<a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/175779/area14mp/file-20170627-29117-4py4yq.PNG"><img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/175779/width754/file-20170627-29117-4py4yq.PNG" alt=""></a> Grattan analysis of Google Maps data, Author provided
Sydney does not have a single region where residents can so clearly expect bad city commutes. That doesn’t mean there’s no congestion. And neither does it mean that it’s just people going to the CBD who are caught up in the commuting tangle. It’s also all the freight vehicles, tradespeople, students going to school or uni, people going to appointments in business hours, and others going elsewhere but still caught up in the snarl of traffic.
Chart 3 shows a selection of trips that don’t include the Sydney CBD but do have delays, with the size of delay depending on the direction of the trip.
<a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/176325/area14mp/file-20170630-26970-1r9bzya.PNG"><img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/176325/width754/file-20170630-26970-1r9bzya.PNG" alt=""></a>
In Sydney, the delay depends more on the direction of the trip, than what side of the city commuters are driving from. Grattan analysis of Google Maps data, Author provided
The how-long-does-it-take-you-to-get-to-work story involves more than roads. One-quarter of Sydney commuters and 18% of Melbourne commuters <a href="https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/files/is_059.pdf" target="_blank">use public transport</a>, and these figures are much <a href="https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2015/01/21/why-do-commuters-drive-to-work-instead-of-taking-transit/" target="_blank">higher for commuters to the CBD</a>. Nonetheless, around <a href="https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2016/files/BITRE_yearbook_2016_statistics_full_report.pdf" target="_blank">eight of every ten kilometres of travel</a> by Sydney and Melbourne residents is by car.
What happens on our roads affects the daily lives of most city dwellers, as well as the social and economic rhythms of the city. The Grattan Institute will publish a fuller analysis of congestion in coming months, to help governments make the best use of our transport networks – and reduce your time on the road.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marion-terrill-169480" target="_blank">Marion Terrill</a>, Transport Program Director, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/stuck-in-traffic-busting-melbourne-versus-sydney-myths-and-identifying-the-worst-commutes-79343" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Busting Melbourne versus Sydney myths and identifying the worst commutes

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Soon after becoming prime minister last year, Scott Morrison appointed a minister for “congestion busting”, signalling the importance he attaches to this issue. The large number of Google search results on “traffic congestion in Australian cities 2019” (9.5 million) and “traffic congestion in Australian cities costing the economy 2019” (8.3 million) seems to support his opinion.
But what if this concern for traffic congestion is based more on “groupthink” than a careful look at the relevant data? What if congestion is not such a big social or economic problem? What if congestion costs are overemphasised?
In thinking about these questions, it should be recognised that there is always an underlying demand for driving, which exceeds the road space available, so building more roads induces more traffic. Congestion soon returns but with more vehicles affected than before. In addition, congestion is likely to increase with rising population and living standards.
Is traffic congestion a problem for the economy?
The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) estimated the “avoidable social costs” of traffic congestion for Australia’s eight capital cities at A$16.5 billion in 2015. While the estimate is carefully calculated, there is scope to consider other relevant factors such as:
<ol>
<li>traffic congestion is usually a problem only for commuters in or near metropolitan CBD areas – for other road users, their average time delay is a relatively minor problem</li>
<li>the BITRE estimate is a small proportion (about 1%) of Australia’s 2015 GDP</li>
<li>more than one-third of the A$16.5 billion estimate is for private time costs that aren’t factored into GDP calculations</li>
<li>except perhaps for congestion charging, avoiding the BITRE cost estimate would require capital expenditure, reducing the net benefit that action to reduce congestion costs could capture</li>
<li>the BITRE estimate gives insufficient attention to changes in travel behaviour and location decisions in response to congestion.</li>
</ol>
There is evidence that road users, both private and business, adapt to congestion by changing travel route and time of travel, as well as changing location. In addition, the effects of the so-called Marchetti travel time budget (time saved on one route tends to be used for more travel elsewhere rather than for non-travel purposes) does not seem to have been considered in the BITRE calculations.
Using congestion to guide development
While the avoidable social costs of road congestion are arguably not a big deal, it’s pretty clear congestion plays a significant role in structuring urban areas.
Urban planners in Vancouver recognised this some 40 years ago. Rather than trying to reduce traffic congestion, they consciously used that congestion to limit commuter car access to the city centre. They went so far as to say “congestion is our friend”.
A “carrot and stick” approach was adopted in Vancouver. Traffic congestion was used to discourage commuting by car from the suburbs to the CBD. At the same time, complementary urban planning and design policies were enacted to make the inner city a more attractive place to live for all family types including those with young children. High-quality public transport (particularly the SkyTrain metro system) to the CBD was expanded to cover more of the metropolitan area, providing an attractive alternative to commuting by car.
Of course, congestion management can be used to support other land use planning strategies, such as metropolitan decentralisation. Again this would require a “carrot and stick” approach.
Congestion narrative fuels ‘the infrastructure turn’
Urban researchers have identified what has been called “the infrastructure turn”. This is an excessive focus on building infrastructure, particularly large transport infrastructure, rather than on integrated strategic land use and transport planning.
The infrastructure focus is a simplistic response to growing city populations. Importantly, it fails to manage travel demand towards a more sustainable long-term result, such as metropolitan decentralisation like Sydney’s “three cities” approach.
Emphasising congestion and its estimated costs reinforces a sense that urgent action is needed, and supports the “infrastructure turn”.
Planning for the city we desire
A best practice approach to metropolitan planning requires that transport planning and land use planning work together to achieve a desired future for the city. And community deliberation determines this desired future. The performance of the transport system should be measured mainly by how well this desired future is being achieved, rather than by the level of traffic congestion.
While traffic congestion is real and annoying to many (and also a worry for politicians like the prime minister), it’s not a big social or economic problem. Instead, the congestion could be managed – rather than just catering to projected demand – so our cities become more like the places we want them to be.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111614/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Brian Feeney, Adjunct Fellow, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/rethinking-traffic-congestion-to-make-our-cities-more-like-the-places-we-want-them-to-be-111614" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Rethinking traffic congestion to make our cities more like the places we want them to be

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Infrastructure spending is one of the central themes of Treasurer Frydenberg’s budget speech. His headline announcement was the promise to increase the ten-year federal infrastructure spend from the A$75 billion announced last year to a target of $100 billion.
Major projects previously announced – like the Melbourne Airport rail link, Western Sydney’s north-south airport rail link and Queensland’s Bruce Highway upgrade – are affirmed. A fast rail connection from Melbourne to Geelong is added. Also added are nation-wide packages of roadworks targeted at reducing congestion and improving regional freight corridors.
So the announcements continue the infrastructure program detailed in the 2018-19 budget, as promoted regularly in the government’s expensive “Building Our Future” advertising campaign that gives prominence to the government’s ten-year “Infrastructure Pipeline”.
Lack of transparency is an issue
It needs saying that analysts have found it difficult to verify what last year’s $75 billion promise actually involved. The claim is the subject of a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201819/Infrastructure" target="_blank">major investigative paper by the Australian Parliamentary Library</a>, with its authors observing:
"The Parliamentary Library has been unable to locate any public document which provides a transparent overview of [the federal government’s] total infrastructure commitments."
One suspects that scrutiny over coming weeks of the $100 billion infrastructure spending promises will be thwarted by a repetition of this lack of transparency.
Why are infrastructure needs so great?
The <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/Population" target="_blank">national population growth story</a> is the key framework for assessing the Coalition’s infrastructure plan. Between 1901 and 1948, the nation grew steadily, but modestly, from a population of 3.8 million to 7.7 million. Then the population surged on the back of a post-war baby boom and an expansion of immigration. The population grew by between 2.0 and 2.5 million people each decade from the 1950s through to the 2000s.
But in the last decade, the nation has added nearly 6 million people, with the east coast cities overwhelmingly hosting the increase. Urban infrastructure planning and spending have lagged. Both quality of life and economic productivity have been affected adversely as a consequence.
The infrastructure spending in this budget responds to community concerns about these declines.
We now know we failed to properly plan for and fund the surge in urban growth that has carried congestion on its back. Instead, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08111146.2016.1235034?casa_token=JZ87b43jKfsAAAAA:4CYq12H1N4Hddq0IxoJ93gfPfvN-YN4Vl5TJsRJL56XcNzX54kOpmkt6H_b85H6py-emtkl_CpfelA" target="_blank">large federal government surpluses from the 1990s were steered into debt paybacks</a>.
The Future Fund was also created to cover public service pension liabilities. That fund is now custodian of over <a href="https://www.futurefund.gov.au/investment/investment-performance/portfolio-updates" target="_blank">$150 billion worth of assets</a>.
Dissolving pension liabilities is wise economic management. Australia’s problem is that this resolution took place at the expense of national capital works spending. Around this time, the state-owned utilities that had taken responsibility for the roll-out of post-war infrastructure – with their regular, predictable annual capital works budgets and their vast in-house planning and delivery offices – were on their last legs.
The loss of committed funding and the erosion of the utilities <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/infrastructure/report" target="_blank">stalled infrastructure delivery</a> at a time in Australian history when it was most needed. The urban infrastructure projects for coping with the acceleration of urban growth are only now coming on stream.
New funding streams have had to be found, led by a new round of state-based asset sell-offs – in New South Wales especially – and new models of private sector delivery, ownership and operation. Pretty much all new urban infrastructure projects in Australia are now some sort of <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8462.2005.00385.x" target="_blank">private public partnership</a>.
But, as this budget confirms, private sector involvement in infrastructure spending and delivery needs to be leveraged on the back of public funding and protected from project risk by a raft of government measures. An important risk amelioration measure involves decision-making technologies.
Here, the growing expertise within the federal government’s Infrastructure Australia unit is increasingly important. Established by the Rudd Labor government a decade ago, IA struggled for legitimacy for many years. Now we can see <a href="https://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/files/IA18-4005_Priority_List_2019_ACC_L.pdf" target="_blank">Infrastructure Australia’s priority lists</a> – based on its independent assessments – dominating government budget announcements. Indeed, the government’s ten-year <a href="https://buildingourfuture.gov.au/assets/documents/10_Year_Infrastructure_Pipeline.pdf" target="_blank">Infrastructure Investment Pipeline</a> is a very close reproduction of Infrastructure Australia’s national priority listing. Which is a good thing.
Why the focus on roads?
The problem, of course, is that rather than infrastructure steering urban growth, as would have been the case had the Howard Coalition government not dramatically lowered the level of national capital works spending, infrastructure spending now chases urban growth.
Not surprisingly, the Morrison government packages a bundle of roads spending as “urban congestion” measures, acknowledging that transport planning has been inadequate.
The concentration on roads spending also acknowledges that the millennial growth surge in our cities has been geographically perverse. Greenfields residential projects are rarely aligned to public transport systems. And jobs growth has been a mix of CBD obsession and suburban scatter.
The result is congestion of antiquated CBD-centric public transport systems and suburban journey-to-work patterns that make retrofitting of public transport an impossible task.
No doubt there will be criticism of this budget’s apparent obsession with roads spending. The unfortunate reality is that large sections of our cities are stuck with the roads-based configuration that was instilled into their DNA from the get-go. Roads – not rail – are the thoroughfares that define transport options across our new suburban areas into the future.
Getting used to road spending and having constructive things to say about road use are a major challenge.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114598/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Phillip O'Neill, Director, Centre for Western Sydney, Western Sydney University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/congestion-busting-infrastructure-plays-catch-up-on-long-neglected-needs-114598" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Congestion-busting infrastructure plays catch-up on long-neglected need

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVERS
Car parking occupies a large proportion of urban areas, and cities cannot keep sacrificing so much space to meet demand. 
While car parking was a non-negotiable amenity for baby boomers, it is an eyesore to millennials and the up-and-coming iGen. Newer generations want more city and <a href="https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/11/13/millennials-unhappily-stuck-in-their-parents-transportation-system/" target="_blank">fewer cars</a>. Globally, scrapping car parking is the latest trend in urban planning.
Between 2010 and 2015, Philadelphia <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/27/cities-eliminating-car-parks-parking" target="_blank">removed 3,000 off-street parking spaces</a> from its city centre. Copenhagen is <a href="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/07/110713-cutting-down-on-city-parking/" target="_blank">following the same path</a>. Zurich has implemented a <a href="https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S2044-994120140000005017" target="_blank">city-wide cap to llimit parking spaces</a> to 1990s levels.
Amsterdam has announced it will remove parking spaces at a rate of 1,500 a year. The city’s 2025 goal is to eliminate <a href="https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/03/amsterdam-cars-parking-spaces-bike-lanes-trees-green-left/586108/" target="_blank">more than 11,000 parking spaces</a> from its streets to make space for cycling.
San Francisco and New York have adopted the <a href="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/07/110713-cutting-down-on-city-parking/" target="_blank">concept of “parklets”</a>. These are mini parks or outdoor café seating areas that temporarily replace a few parking spots during low-demand periods.
The theory is that as the amount of parking decreases, the appeal of driving gives way to more environmentally friendly transport modes such as walking, cycling, ride-hailing, car pooling and public transport.
Some <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856408000657" target="_blank">evidence</a> suggests reducing or capping parking pays off. In cities that have implemented these measures, driving has declined and public transport use has increased.
<h2>What’s happening in Australia?</h2>
Among the largest Australian cities, Brisbane seems to be going backwards. The Courier Mail recently published a <a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.couriermail.com.au%2Fquestnews%2Fsoutheast%2Fparked-out-suburban-streets-become-oneway-thoroughfares%2Fnews-story%2Fb83f4255072633bb67e57805abbaf9ad%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3wsfXqhstnSA1rG0tceAFCcM2F-Ggn6XO8KUaHEpmG8wGrzwP0d1u7dsc&amp;h=AT0dQKoaMy4zmmWh8oipmADa_mZcUKwQFAu948C-diA36GnT1oH9BGP6v3EqIwSXYgz6QkmIojmp-bIsqdbZ7NWPA5BOehuRCVg_NWUmulMg9fXHs9k-3Af5-kqs9iRGeFJPggJ9LZBI-TfZZyMb-fjTCv-CFV-SVoZ-_ZKhVHoUc5xBIeuhi2kiQPCYYxXk9LY8Vg1wPDAzwHMltpJCfgVxq4ZYyqrVaS0-5Lccw-3iec8nK9plYhw84O87BBdq2gz2sKY0hEkl_xp-U4yuX5MW516YTEavIpiGEDcy_sTZSfCkpTwG5I5UbTYegNSjOx1dm4dwx6PRNWy4biy_M5iyqD1TtyyDAi77A_oaVhr4Kixhoaf1ENp4V-ievUGwXgfmev9xbBsWG0F0SM0ZjkA9jvX50VHiQLh0UoSVz-BlJnjRaM1aox2GOHcxufDSaiOOmwTUmksyp0fXdtuRUO9QqUoSbw2-jvEBOkzSeMJsVHqCw7GIJjHszjaOMJH-ITgVHSdxo4iG_Ixk6i_ysbJwmFvUuubR3Pz406YIX6zGpIJSn7tGhH2q9INg6Jh0B06UY1TNqRlE2Pgs1U9q3Mi1Zj2vje9utYldmc58fyYdfKXB2TEw2u_iYcYm6XvzePm20_BWIg" target="_blank">story</a> stating that:
Suburban streets in two Brisbane suburbs have become all-day car parks as the new residents of apartments are forced to resort to on-street parking.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285252/original/file-20190723-91864-fu73f8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""> Some on-street parking in Brisbane suburbs is occupied much of the day. Neil Sipe, Author provided
In response to such sentiments, <a href="https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/a-car-park-for-every-bedroom-council-proposes-new-apartment-plan-20190604-p51ucx" target="_blank">Brisbane City Council proposes</a> to increase the number of parking spaces required for future apartment buildings across the middle and outer suburbs. Parking increases have been framed as adding to the quality of life and safety of Brisbane suburbs.
Unfortunately, Brisbane does not track the existing supply of residential parking. This lack of clarity has created an imbalance of parking supply and provides opportunities for a sharing economy of parking. Operators such as <a href="https://www.parkhound.com.au/" target="_blank">Parkhound</a> and <a href="https://kerb.works/australia/brisbane" target="_blank">KERB</a> enable residents to lease their unused parking while their neighbours exhaust the public supply of on-street parking.
Meanwhile, Sydney has officially <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/city-of-sydney-officially-declares-climate-emergency-20190625-p520zd" target="_blank">declared a “climate emergency”</a>, following the lead of global cities including <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/05/nyregion/climate-emergency-nyc" target="_blank">New York</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/11/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-city-climate-emergency" target="_blank">London</a> (and then <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-becomes-first-country-to-declare-a-climate-emergency-116428" target="_blank">all of the UK</a>), <a href="https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/urbanism/climate-change-news/auckland-latest-council-to-declare-climate-emergency/" target="_blank">Auckland</a> and <a href="https://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/climate-emergency-response.aspx" target="_blank">Vancouver</a> (followed by <a href="https://theconversation.com/cognitive-dissonance-canada-declares-a-national-climate-emergency-and-approves-a-pipeline-119151" target="_blank">Canada</a>). While applauded by environmentalists, this declaration does not come with a firm commitment to reduce driving or parking.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285052/original/file-20190722-116562-83xpwy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285052/original/file-20190722-116562-83xpwy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> Many city residents believe they have a right to street parking outside their homes. <a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/north-melbourne-vicaustraliadec-21st-2018-family-1263505273?src=c8Yv8d-CiY1V9m2qJKw17g-1-18&amp;studio=1" target="_blank">Shuang Li/Shutterstock</a>
Similarly, in Melbourne, outside the CBD – where there are <a href="https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/news-and-media/Pages/Ten-year-transport-plan-to-create-more-space-for-people.aspx" target="_blank">plans to reduce parking</a> – there is plenty of free, and largely unmanaged, on-street parking. Residents typically <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649357.2014.929727" target="_blank">believe they are entitled</a> to this parking space.
Clearly, Australian cities are stuck in the old-fashioned “predict and provide” model of parking supply. This <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856499000075" target="_blank">model</a> relies on the idea that there will always be enough parking if every site provides spaces for all residents, staff, customers and visitors during peak demand periods.
While this approach might have been suitable in the postwar period, it is unworkable for today’s growing, congested and warming cities. The challenge for planners is how to accommodate increasing numbers of urban residents within a reasonable distance from work and amenities. Cities are running out of space for cars – be they moving or parked.
Is there a better way?
Certainly. Some cities have begun to set <a href="https://qz.com/1037799/mexico-city-got-rid-of-minimum-parking-requirements-and-other-cities-should-too/" target="_blank">maximum parking standards</a>. In other words, the cities put an upper limit on how many car parks can be provided for a given project. Sometimes these complement minimum parking requirements; in other cases the <a href="https://www.ptcconsultants.co/minimum-parking-requirements-rio/" target="_blank">latter are eliminated</a>.
Selling parking spaces separately from housing units, referred to as “<a href="http://www.thegreatermarin.org/blog/2015/8/8/unbundling-parking-isnt-simple-but-its-worth-it" target="_blank">unbundling</a>”, is another policy that’s becoming popular. It ensures the true cost of car storage is transparent rather than hidden. And it means car-free or one-car households don’t have to pay for parking they don’t need.
Some developers are providing <a href="https://www.afr.com/real-estate/residential/how-the-rise-of-car-sharing-could-slash-property-prices-20190524-p51qog" target="_blank">car-sharing spaces</a> in new construction, instead of individual car parks.
Some employers offer a parking “<a href="https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2017/08/07/cashout-parking-great-little-election-policy/" target="_blank">cash out” option</a> – employees receive a payment in lieu of a parking space. Those employers that continue to offer parking charge fees daily rather than monthly to avoid the “<a href="https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/sunk-cost-fallacy/" target="_blank">sunk cost fallacy</a>” – having paid for parking, employees want to get their money’s worth.
Other useful (but hardly new) planning concepts include the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-30-minute-city-how-do-we-put-the-political-rhetoric-into-practice-56136" target="_blank">30-minute city</a>” and “<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2543000918300039" target="_blank">transit-oriented development</a>”. These approaches help reduce the need for driving and parking by concentrating people and land uses around public transport stops and corridors.
Will reducing spaces lead to parking shortages?
People are often concerned that if parking is reduced or capped, this will create a parking shortage. This can be avoided if parking is treated as a key component of the urban transport system and managed in coordination with other elements.
Australian cities need to prepare comprehensive parking strategies at the metropolitan level. These strategies must be integrated with general transport and land use plans. Unfortunately, this is often difficult to achieve because state governments are typically responsible for planning and building the transport system while local governments are responsible for parking.
The impacts of parking reductions on urban citizens need to be offset by providing a higher quality and quantity of public and active transport. This requires substantial investments in public and active transport.
Finally, no parking should be free. Revenues from parking fees should be returned to local communities in the form of improved public amenities.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118393/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/neil-sipe-346144" target="_blank">Neil Sipe</a>, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805" target="_blank">The University of Queensland</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anthony-kimpton-326939" target="_blank">Anthony Kimpton</a>, Postdoctoral research fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805" target="_blank">The University of Queensland</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dorina-pojani-413644" target="_blank">Dorina Pojani</a>, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805" target="_blank">The University of Queensland</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-can-our-cities-do-about-sprawl-congestion-and-pollution-tip-scrap-car-parking-118393" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

What can our cities do about sprawl, congestion and pollution? Tip: scrap car parking

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Congestion charging should be introduced in Australia’s largest cities, as Grattan Institute’s latest report shows. 
Our analysis also finds that the people who commute to the Melbourne and Sydney CBDs by driving are two to three times as likely to earn six-figure salaries as other Australian workers.
One of the main concerns about charging drivers who use the busiest roads at the busiest times has been about fairness. But sensible congestion charges could be designed to avoid burdening financially vulnerable people who lack alternatives to using particular roads at busy times.
Congestion charging is gaining traction in cities around the world as a proven method to manage congestion. <a href="https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08047/02summ.htm" target="_blank">London, Singapore, Stockholm</a> and <a href="https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/09/milan-abruptly-suspended-congestion-pricing-and-traffic-immediately-soared/404521/" target="_blank">Milan</a> all have congestion charging schemes. New York City legislators have approved plans to introduce it in <a href="https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-05-30/new-york-city-gets-nations-first-congestion-pricing-plan" target="_blank">Manhattan</a>.
It’s better than building new infrastructure
Sydney and Melbourne are big, global cities, but with growth and prosperity comes congestion. The solution from the <a href="https://theconversation.com/transport-promises-for-election-2019-the-good-the-bad-and-the-downright-ugly-115138" target="_blank">federal</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-nsw-election-promises-on-transport-add-up-112531" target="_blank">New South Wales</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-will-voters-pay-for-an-early-christmas-eight-charts-that-explain-victorias-transport-election-106782" target="_blank">Victorian governments</a> has been to throw money at huge infrastructure projects. Politicians like promising infrastructure because large benefits can be targeted at key voters, while <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/roads-to-riches/" target="_blank">the costs are spread across all taxpayers</a>.
But this means many people are paying to alleviate some people’s congestion. And the relief from new infrastructure tends to be short-lived. In Australia’s fast-growing cities, extra public transport capacity at peak times gets chewed up quickly, while new freeways tend to fill with new traffic soon after opening.
This doesn’t mean governments should stop investing in infrastructure. But it does raise the question of whether spending billions of taxpayer dollars is the best or fairest way to tackle congestion.
We usually think of congestion as a force that slows us down, without thinking about how we slow everyone else around us. Congestion charging fixes this by charging a modest fee to use the busiest roads. Drivers then have to decide whether it’s worth making their trip at that time on that road.
Drivers who need to travel at peak times are always able to do so – they just need to pay a fee. Heavy users will end up paying more for using an in-demand resource. The most flexible drivers will save money by travelling later, or elsewhere, or by another mode. And this means getting out of everybody else’s way.
Charging is also fairer than the licence-plate approach of Mexico City or Beijing, where cars are banned from driving on certain days depending on their licence plate numbers. These heavy-handed restrictions ignore the fact that people’s travel needs vary from day to day. Why ban a driver on the day of a job interview?
But what about all the drivers on low incomes?
It’s fair to ask whether congestion charging will burden the most vulnerable people in society. And the answer depends on the design of the scheme.
First, the people who we should really worry about are those who: are struggling financially; frequently or urgently need to travel on charged roads or to a charged area; and lack good alternatives to driving at that time on those roads.
A sensible congestion charge would target only the busiest roads and areas – think central business districts (CBDs), major freeways and key arterial routes – and only at times of high demand such as peak hour.
So if Sydney or Melbourne were to introduce a peak-period congestion charge around their CBDs, how many vulnerable people would be affected? Hardly any.
Our research shows the drivers who would pay the charge tend to be doing just fine. It’s mostly commuters and people driving as part of their job – think tradespeople and couriers. Those travelling for work could pass the cost on to their customers – every tradie driving to the CBD would face the same charge, so no one would gain or lose a competitive advantage. 
Most CBD drivers are well-off
And the CBD commuters? They tend to earn much more than the typical Australian.
Grattan Institute analysis shows most people driving to the Sydney CBD for work each day earn six-figure salaries. Their median income is nearly A$2,500 a week – about A$1,000 a week more than the typical income for full-time workers in Sydney.
It’s a similar story in Melbourne. The median full-time worker driving to the CBD earns nearly A$2,000 a week – about A$650 more than the typical full-time worker in Melbourne.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296601/original/file-20191011-188835-frfve2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip" target="_blank">Click here</a> to enlarge: 
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296601/original/file-20191011-188835-frfve2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296601/original/file-20191011-188835-frfve2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
And these CBD commuters are also generally well-served by public transport. The CBD is the most accessible location in Sydney and Melbourne, with multiple train lines and bus or tram routes running through it.
That’s why most people travel to the CBD by public transport. In Sydney, barely one in six full-time CBD workers actually commute by private vehicle. In Melbourne, it’s only a quarter. But these workers typically earn a lot more than the people on CBD-bound buses, trams and trains.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296358/original/file-20191010-188823-11gu703.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip" target="_blank">Click here</a> to enlarge: 
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296358/original/file-20191010-188823-11gu703.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296358/original/file-20191010-188823-11gu703.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/why-its-time-for-congestion-charging" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a>, Author provided
Perhaps surprisingly, drivers to the CBD are more likely to come from inner, richer parts of the city – think Mosman and Double Bay, not Penrith or Parramatta. It’s the same in Melbourne: more people drive from Kew and Richmond than Broadmeadows or Dandenong. Even those driving in from lower-income areas typically earn more than most of their neighbours.
This means the number of genuinely disadvantaged people who would be burdened by a congestion charge is small. As for one-off trips to the CBD – maybe for a specialist appointment – these are by definition infrequent and can often be rescheduled to the middle of the day.
State governments should consider discounts for low-income people with impaired mobility. However, wide-ranging exemptions would badly undermine the effectiveness of the congestion charge – <a href="https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/04/londons-congestion-charge-needs-updating/557699/" target="_blank">as happened in London</a>.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296357/original/file-20191010-188792-2qbjjm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip" target="_blank">Click here</a> to enlarge: 
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296357/original/file-20191010-188792-2qbjjm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296357/original/file-20191010-188792-2qbjjm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/why-its-time-for-congestion-charging" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a>, Author provided
Congestion charging is a smarter way to improve Australia’s largest cities and fears that it would be unfair are overblown. It should be the centrepiece of a mixed strategy to tackle congestion. The NSW and Victorian governments should introduce <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mg748jat-metro-mcla.36?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">cordon charging</a> around the CBDs of their capitals within the next five years.
Marion Terrill, Transport and Cities Program Director, Grattan Institute.
James Ha, Associate, Grattan Institute.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-why-congestion-charging-is-fairer-than-you-might-think-124894" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Why congestion charging is fairer than you might think: Grattan Institute 

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVERS
Congestion charging should be introduced in Australia’s largest cities, as Grattan Institute’s <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/why-its-time-for-congestion-charging" target="_blank">latest report</a> shows. Our analysis also finds that the people who commute to the Melbourne and Sydney CBDs by driving are two to three times as likely to earn six-figure salaries as other Australian workers.
One of the main concerns about charging drivers who use the busiest roads at the busiest times has been about fairness. But sensible congestion charges could be designed to avoid burdening financially vulnerable people who lack alternatives to using particular roads at busy times.
Congestion charging is gaining traction in cities around the world as a proven method to manage congestion. <a href="https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08047/02summ.htm" target="_blank">London, Singapore, Stockholm</a> and <a href="https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/09/milan-abruptly-suspended-congestion-pricing-and-traffic-immediately-soared/404521/" target="_blank">Milan</a> all have congestion charging schemes. New York City legislators have approved plans to introduce it in <a href="https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-05-30/new-york-city-gets-nations-first-congestion-pricing-plan" target="_blank">Manhattan</a>.
<h2>It’s better than building new infrastructure</h2>
Sydney and Melbourne are big, global cities, but with growth and prosperity comes congestion. The solution from the <a href="https://theconversation.com/transport-promises-for-election-2019-the-good-the-bad-and-the-downright-ugly-115138" target="_blank">federal</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-nsw-election-promises-on-transport-add-up-112531" target="_blank">New South Wales</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-will-voters-pay-for-an-early-christmas-eight-charts-that-explain-victorias-transport-election-106782" target="_blank">Victorian governments</a> has been to throw money at huge infrastructure projects. Politicians like promising infrastructure because large benefits can be targeted at key voters, while <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/roads-to-riches/" target="_blank">the costs are spread across all taxpayers</a>.
But this means many people are paying to alleviate some people’s congestion. And the relief from new infrastructure tends to be short-lived. In Australia’s fast-growing cities, extra public transport capacity at peak times gets chewed up quickly, while new freeways tend to fill with new traffic soon after opening.
This doesn’t mean governments should stop investing in infrastructure. But it does raise the question of whether spending billions of taxpayer dollars is the best or fairest way to tackle congestion.
We usually think of congestion as a force that slows us down, without thinking about how we slow everyone else around us. Congestion charging fixes this by charging a modest fee to use the busiest roads. Drivers then have to decide whether it’s worth making their trip at that time on that road.
Drivers who need to travel at peak times are always able to do so – they just need to pay a fee. Heavy users will end up paying more for using an in-demand resource. The most flexible drivers will save money by travelling later, or elsewhere, or by another mode. And this means getting out of everybody else’s way.
Charging is also fairer than the licence-plate approach of Mexico City or Beijing, where cars are banned from driving on certain days depending on their licence plate numbers. These heavy-handed restrictions ignore the fact that people’s travel needs vary from day to day. Why ban a driver on the day of a job interview?
<h2>But what about all the drivers on low incomes?</h2>
It’s fair to ask whether congestion charging will burden the most vulnerable people in society. And the answer depends on the design of the scheme.
First, the people who we should really worry about are those who: are struggling financially; frequently or urgently need to travel on charged roads or to a charged area; and lack good alternatives to driving at that time on those roads.
A sensible congestion charge would target only the busiest roads and areas – think central business districts (CBDs), major freeways and key arterial routes – and only at times of high demand such as peak hour.
So if Sydney or Melbourne were to introduce a peak-period congestion charge around their CBDs, how many vulnerable people would be affected? Hardly any.
Our research shows the drivers who would pay the charge tend to be doing just fine. It’s mostly commuters and people driving as part of their job – think tradespeople and couriers. Those travelling for work could pass the cost on to their customers – every tradie driving to the CBD would face the same charge, so no one would gain or lose a competitive advantage.
 
<h2>Most CBD drivers are well-off</h2>
And the CBD commuters? They tend to earn much more than the typical Australian.
Grattan Institute analysis shows most people driving to the Sydney CBD for work each day earn six-figure salaries. Their median income is nearly A$2,500 a week – about A$1,000 a week more than the typical income for full-time workers in Sydney.
It’s a similar story in Melbourne. The median full-time worker driving to the CBD earns nearly A$2,000 a week – about A$650 more than the typical full-time worker in Melbourne.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296601/original/file-20191011-188835-frfve2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296601/original/file-20191011-188835-frfve2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
And these CBD commuters are also generally well-served by public transport. The CBD is the most accessible location in Sydney and Melbourne, with multiple train lines and bus or tram routes running through it.
That’s why most people travel to the CBD by public transport. In Sydney, barely one in six full-time CBD workers actually commute by private vehicle. In Melbourne, it’s only a quarter. But these workers typically earn a lot more than the people on CBD-bound buses, trams and trains.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296358/original/file-20191010-188823-11gu703.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296358/original/file-20191010-188823-11gu703.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> <a class="source" href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/why-its-time-for-congestion-charging" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a>, Author provided
Perhaps surprisingly, drivers to the CBD are more likely to come from inner, richer parts of the city – think Mosman and Double Bay, not Penrith or Parramatta. It’s the same in Melbourne: more people drive from Kew and Richmond than Broadmeadows or Dandenong. Even those driving in from lower-income areas typically earn more than most of their neighbours.
This means the number of genuinely disadvantaged people who would be burdened by a congestion charge is small. As for one-off trips to the CBD – maybe for a specialist appointment – these are by definition infrequent and can often be rescheduled to the middle of the day.
State governments should consider discounts for low-income people with impaired mobility. However, wide-ranging exemptions would badly undermine the effectiveness of the congestion charge – <a href="https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/04/londons-congestion-charge-needs-updating/557699/" target="_blank">as happened in London</a>.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296357/original/file-20191010-188792-2qbjjm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296357/original/file-20191010-188792-2qbjjm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> <a class="source" href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/why-its-time-for-congestion-charging" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a>, Author provided
Congestion charging is a smarter way to improve Australia’s largest cities and fears that it would be unfair are overblown. It should be the centrepiece of a mixed strategy to tackle congestion. The NSW and Victorian governments should introduce <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mg748jat-metro-mcla.36?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">cordon charging</a> around the CBDs of their capitals within the next five years.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marion-terrill-169480" target="_blank">Marion Terrill</a>, Transport and Cities Program Director, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/james-ha-596825" target="_blank">James Ha</a>, Associate, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-why-congestion-charging-is-fairer-than-you-might-think-124894" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Three charts on why congestion charging is fairer than you might think

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
If more of us were free to work from home, fewer of us would be stuck in traffic. 
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/traffic-congestion" target="_blank">Traffic congestion</a> is one of the most significant challenges facing our cities. Melbourne’s population is growing by around <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/3218.0?OpenDocument" target="_blank">325 people a day</a> and is <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/booming-melbourne-to-become-nation-s-largest-city-by-2026-20190327-p5186v" target="_blank">projected to overtake Sydney’s</a> within a decade.
<a href="https://www.aaa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/AAA-Congestion-Report-2018-FINAL.pdf">Identified as the most congested city in the country</a>, this was a factor in Melbourne <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/nation/melbourne-loses-title-of-most-liveable-city/news-story/f5145850143b5801db36c75ed7d73133" target="_blank">losing its seven-year grip on the “world’s most liveable city” title</a> last year.
One obvious solution to traffic congestion, caused mostly by workers commuting to jobs in the city centre during peak hours, might appear to be building more, or bigger, roads. But a less obvious answer, and potentially a more cost-effective one, might be to increase flexible working arrangements.
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162518301549" target="_blank">Our research</a> has looked into ways to ease congestion by reducing the need for travel in congested areas in the first place. It shows city workers definitely have an appetite for flexible work hours and practices.
However, many (36%) still can’t or don’t work remotely. Those who do work remotely do so for a small fraction of the week – 1.1 days on average – even though a high percentage of their work tasks can be done anywhere.
<h2>More roads don’t solve the problem</h2>
Traditionally, congestion has simply been accepted as the starting point, with infrastructure being built to accommodate it. However, as a report on <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w15376" target="_blank">US research</a> findings about so-called induced demand <a href="https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/" target="_blank">explains</a>:
If you expand people’s ability to travel, they will do it more. […] Making driving easier means that people take more trips in the car than they otherwise would.
This increase in travel uses up any extra capacity improved infrastructure might bring. As a result, <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w15376" target="_blank">traffic levels and congestion remain constant</a>.
A <a href="https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/Urban%20Transport%20Crowding%20and%20Congestion.pdf" target="_blank">2019 report</a> from Infrastructure Australia observes that the huge number of road and rail projects in Sydney and Melbourne, both current and planned, will not prevent crippling congestion by 2031.
<h2>What did the flexible working study find?</h2>
This issue was the motivation for our study into alternative ways to ease congestion. It identified flexible working as one possible solution.
The term <a href="https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employee-entitlements/flexibility-in-the-workplace/flexible-working-arrangements" target="_blank">flexible working</a> refers to arrangements that enable employees to adjust the number of hours they work, the pattern of those hours, or where they work. Flexible working has risen significantly in recent years, with many potential <a href="https://fortune.com/2019/02/20/four-day-work-week-research-benefits/" target="_blank">benefits</a> for both <a href="https://www.recruitment-international.com.au/blog/2018/06/73-percent-of-australian-employees-value-flexible-working-hays-reveals" target="_blank">employees</a> and <a href="https://employsure.com.au/blog/rewarding-retaining-employees-flexible-work-arrangements/" target="_blank">employers</a>. Yet few studies have examined its potential to reduce traffic congestion.
For our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162518301549" target="_blank">study</a>, we surveyed 263 city workers from ten of Melbourne’s biggest employers. We asked them about their commuting habits, existing flexible working arrangements, attitudes toward flexible working and the nature of their work tasks.
We found 64% of workers were already taking advantage of some sort of flexible working arrangements that allowed them to work from a remote location, usually at home, an average of 1.1 days a week. And 83% of them either “liked” or “loved” the ability to do this.
Only 2% said none of their work could be performed from an alternative location. A majority of participants, 58%, indicated they could do at least half their work duties out of the office. Some 30% of the workers indicated 80% or more of their work duties could be performed remotely.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288868/original/file-20190821-170951-a5jci6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288868/original/file-20190821-170951-a5jci6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Breakdown of participants in flexible working survey. <a class="source" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162518301549" target="_blank">Author's research</a>, Author provided
Technology enables these flexible working opportunities. Laptops, smartphones, high-speed internet and cloud access were highlighted as the must-haves for remote working.
Many of us no longer need to travel to a fixed location to work because the tools of our labour are located there. The tools of our labour are now in our back pockets or work satchels.
<h2>Finland shows what’s possible</h2>
Urban congestion is a growing problem worldwide. Today, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">55% of people live in urban areas, a figure expected to reach 68% by 2050</a>. The use of motor vehicles is also growing rapidly.
But access to flexible working is growing around the world too.
Finland, a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190807-why-finland-leads-the-world-in-flexible-work" target="_blank">pioneer of flexible working practices</a>, recently adopted a new <a href="https://nordiclaw.fi/new-working-hours-act-of-finland-enters-into-force-1-january-2020/" target="_blank">Working Hours Act</a>. It will give a majority of full-time employees the right to decide when and where they work for at least half of their working hours.
A similar flexible working bill was introduced to the UK Parliament in July by Conservative MP Helen Whately. She <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49003413" target="_blank">said</a>:
The 40-hour, five-day working week made sense in an era of single-earner households and stay-at-home mums, but it no longer reflects the reality of how many modern families want to live their lives.
Our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162518301549" target="_blank">evidence from Melbourne suggests</a> the appetite for, and availability of, flexible working will continue to increase as more people do it and more millennials take up leadership roles.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290005/original/file-20190829-184234-ircnwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290005/original/file-20190829-184234-ircnwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
A small reduction in peak-hour commuter numbers could make the difference between being able to squeeze onto a train or not. <a class="source" href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.flickr.com/photos/14027144@N00/94288580" target="_blank">Runs With Scissors/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-NC-ND</a>
If the 64% of workers who now work remotely 1.1 days a week increased this to five days a fortnight, this could cut the number of daily commuters to Melbourne from <a href="https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/files/report_125.pdf" target="_blank">572,000</a> to 440,500 a day. If the remaining 36% of workers were also able to work remotely 50% of the time, daily commuter numbers would fall further to around 337,500, a total reduction of 41%.
Even much smaller reductions in commuter numbers could have significant impacts on congestion. An <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/DBAssets/InquirySubmission/Summary/52831/Sub13%20NRMA.pdf" target="_blank">NRMA submission</a> that advocated flexible working hours and practices to a 2013 NSW parliamentary inquiry noted:
As a rule of thumb, when traffic on congested roads reduces by 5%, traffic speeds increase 50% (even if this only means going from 20 to 30km/h) […] A small reduction in the amount of passengers during peak hours can sometimes make the difference between being able to squeeze onto a bus or train, or not.
In this era of growing urban congestion, an increase in flexible working practices appears to have serious potential for easing the strain on our roads and transport networks. Isn’t it about time we asked ourselves if we could all be a bit more flexible?<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122130/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-l-hopkins-255434" target="_blank">John L Hopkins</a>, Theme Leader (Future Urban Mobility), Smart Cities Research Institute, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767" target="_blank">Swinburne University of Technology</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/flexible-working-the-neglected-congestion-busting-solution-for-our-cities-122130" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Flexible working, the neglected congestion-busting solution for our cities

<html><body>
The new transport projects governments are constantly announcing are expensive. In the recent New South Wales and Victorian elections, the returned state governments’ transport infrastructure promises added up to A$165 billion.
What’s mostly missing from the promised transport solutions is smart technology that provides higher benefits at a fraction of the cost – when retrofitting existing roads in particular. The benefit-to-cost ratio can be more than a dozen times greater than for a new road.
Clearly, infrastructure spending helps to drive the economy. These projects also deliver benefits to the community, including increased road safety, shorter travel times and fewer delays.
The economic merit of these projects is usually captured using a benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR). For example, the BCR of the <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/big-projects-bigger-bills-massive-construction-boom-comes-at-a-cost-20190610-p51w5d" target="_blank">A$15.8 billion</a> <a href="https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/north-east-link" target="_blank">North East Link</a> road project in Melbourne is estimated to be <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/north-east-link-at-risk-of-becoming-financial-disaster-economist-20190726-p52b6a" target="_blank">1.25</a> – for every A$1 invested, A$1.25 is returned in benefits to the economy and community. For the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel, a best-case <a href="https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/about-the-project/faq" target="_blank">BCR of 3.3</a> has been reported.
But are we getting good value for money? Could cheaper alternatives deliver more benefits?
<h2>Technology offers smarter, cheaper solutions</h2>
Technology offers transport solutions that provide higher benefits at a fraction of the cost of building new infrastructure. Collectively known as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOMamTXK5T8" target="_blank">intelligent transport systems</a>, these are widely recognised today as better answers for smart transport outcomes.
When <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-infrastructure/our-insights/infrastructure-productivity" target="_blank">comparing</a> different “congestion-busting” options, “building more roads” provides, on average, a BCR of 3.0. This is dwarfed by the much higher BCR values of tech solutions.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300779/original/file-20191107-10952-17um5x0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300779/original/file-20191107-10952-17um5x0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Low_Carbon_Mobility_for_Future_Cities?id=g8NIDgAAQBAJ&amp;source=kp_book_description&amp;redir_esc=y" target="_blank">Source: Low Carbon Mobility for Future Cities: Principles and Applications (Dia, H. ed, 2017), adapted from Infrastructure Productivity: how to save $1 trillion a year (McKinsey, 2013)</a>, Author provided
<a href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc-1/asct.cfm" target="_blank">Adaptive traffic signal control</a> allows <a href="https://youtu.be/lZtOgqbNMVE" target="_blank">traffic signals</a> to change based on actual traffic demand. This yields, on average, a BCR of 40.
Traffic signals along a route can be coordinated to create “<a href="https://youtu.be/PQ-HBC6QGHo?t=12" target="_blank">green waves</a>” for platoons of vehicles to travel without stopping. These solutions are effective for congested cities that experience rapid traffic growth and changing traffic patterns.
<a href="https://www.itsinternational.com/sections/nafta/features/integrated-corridor-management-to-enhance-travel-efficiency/" target="_blank">Corridor management systems</a> use technology to control networks of motorways and urban roads. The average BCR is 24.
On <a href="https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/traffic-and-road-use/traffic-management/managed-motorways" target="_blank">managed motorways</a>, <a href="https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/traffic-and-road-use/traffic-management/managed-motorways/coordinated-ramp-signals" target="_blank">ramp signals</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUyMJwZ8_s" target="_blank">variable speed limit signs</a> and <a href="https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/traffic-and-road-use/traffic-management/managed-motorways/traveller-information-for-motorists" target="_blank">traveller information systems</a> are <a href="https://youtu.be/iFL2CZfJZD8" target="_blank">proven tools</a> to respond in real time to changing traffic conditions. In <a href="https://www.transmax.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Case-Study_Smart-Motorways-.pdf" target="_blank">one case</a>, a managed motorway reduced travel times by 42% and accidents by 30%.
<a href="https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/traffic-and-road-use/traffic-management/managed-motorways/lane-and-speed-management-for-incidents" target="_blank">Traffic incident management</a>, which has a BCR of 21, includes technologies that aid quick detection and removal of crashes. They also detect other incidents such as broken-down vehicles or spilled loads that reduce road capacity. The systems rely on smart <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X97000168" target="_blank">software</a> that analyses sensor data in real time.
<a href="http://ntimc.transportation.org/Pages/NTIMCPublicationsandProducts.aspx" target="_blank">Benefits</a> include a 40% reduction in time to detect incidents. The technology also <a href="http://ntimc.transportation.org/Documents/Benefits11-07-06.pdf" target="_blank">reduces incident duration by 23%</a> and <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://trid.trb.org/view/481658" target="_blank">road crashes by 35%</a>.
<h2>Combining tech solutions magnifies benefits</h2>
When solutions are combined, benefits are amplified. The <a href="https://sunguide.info/annual-reports/district-six-its-annual-report/" target="_blank">Florida Department of Transportation</a> implements a transport technology program on its networks. The solutions include incident management, ramp signalling, traveller information and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdVDEU5UVb4&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=50" target="_blank">express lanes</a>. Reduced incident duration and traffic delays are among the key benefits.
In 2018, the benefits of this program totalled almost <a href="https://sunguide.info/reports/annual-reports/District-Six-ITS-Annual-Report/2018-District-Six-ITS-Annual-Report.pdf" target="_blank">US$3.1 billion</a> (A$4.5 billion). The costs were <a href="https://sunguide.info/reports/annual-reports/District-Six-ITS-Annual-Report/2018-District-Six-ITS-Annual-Report.pdf" target="_blank">US$70.3 million</a> (A$102 million). That’s a BCR of 43.7.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300555/original/file-20191107-12506-jk28cf.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300555/original/file-20191107-12506-jk28cf.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Benefit-cost ratios of transport technology solutions implemented over a decade by Florida Department of Transportation. Author provided
In the UK, the <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/%7E/media/McKinsey/Industries/Capital%20Projects%20and%20Infrastructure/Our%20Insights/Infrastructure%20productivity/MGI%20Infrastructure_Full%20report_Jan%202013.ashx" target="_blank">cost</a> of implementing technology solutions on the <a href="https://www.roads.org.uk/motorway/m42" target="_blank">M42 motorway</a> was US$150 million (A$218 million) and took two years to complete. Widening the road to produce the same outcome would have taken 10 years and cost US$800 million (A$1.16 billion).
<h2>A shift in priorities is needed</h2>
Considerable investment in transport infrastructure is still required. It should be guided by strong business cases and aligned with community values and expectations.
However, technology is getting to the point where it’s making a serious difference in tackling the mega challenges facing our cities. Its role must be prioritised.
The benefits are compelling. Intelligent technology systems improve the use of existing assets and increase their operational life. They enhance traveller experience and reduce reliance on building new roads. And they deliver superior value for money.
But widespread deployment of these technologies is still limited. To spur change and unlock value, we must move beyond a project-by-project approach.
<h2>Learn from the best</h2>
Governments can be guided by <a href="https://itif.org/publications/2010/01/09/explaining-international-it-application-leadership-intelligent" target="_blank">leading nations</a> in this field such as South Korea, Japan and Singapore. Their citizens experience the benefits every day. Smart transport solutions improve their quality of life through easier travel, less congestion and more reliable services.
The recurring policy themes in these countries include a national vision of smart infrastructure and commitment to funding. They prioritise investment in research and trials, standards development and partnerships with industry. These are key factors in the success of their tech-driven transport solutions.
These are the policies and investments Australia should prioritise. They will modernise our transport systems in innovative ways that lift our economy and living standards.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125718/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hussein-dia-110689" target="_blank">Hussein Dia</a>, Professor of Future Urban Mobility, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767" target="_blank">Swinburne University of Technology</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/smart-tech-systems-cut-congestion-for-a-fraction-of-what-new-roads-cost-125718" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Traffic Congestion

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Traffic Congestion

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News