News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[drwaddles]

Do correct me if I'm wrong, because I haven't read up on any of this housing affordability stuff, but I'm just going by a theory which sounds about right.

As far as I know, the cost of building and developing a new neighbourhood like Seaford Rise costs about $2billion to provide telecommunications, power, water, roads and parks. That cost has to be covered by taxes - land tax, council rates, and 'installation' fees of phone lines, power boxes, water metres, etc. to each home in this development. In a development of say, 400 homes being sold at an average price of $300,000 plus the land tax and stamp duty fees etc. of about $40,000 - That only gives the government about $160million in taxes (not taking into account of the taxes accrued thereafter by each resident living and taxes acquired with changeover of home owners in a lifetime of 50years) - a revenue that isn't anywhere near enough tax to justify the $2b cost of developing that suburb and its essential needs. Even the revenue from the taxes gained in that 50 year lifetime of the suburb wouldn't subsidise the cost of developing that suburb in the first place by a long margin.

So who has to subsidise the cost of developing these suburbs? The taxpayers living elsewhere. Everyone else's rates just 'marginally' go up each year, the water bills go up, the power bills go up - to keep up with the cost of subsidising these suburbs, and the problem continues year after year, because another 5 developments like this get added onto our already excessively large area of urban sprawl. It is no wonder that businesses can't afford to match wage increases with the rate of inflation - Therefore the rates go higher and higher again, taxes are increased again. And I think its important to note particularly in these times of economic failure that what has happened is that the government has been pressured for so long to 'cut taxes' so that we as the taxpayers can afford to pay off our tax burdens... it is very much a snowballing effect.

Excellent post - hit the nail right on the head.

Traditionally, developers have made profits from selling land and homes with minimal services. Taxpayers and ratepayers then have to cover the cost of providing these services - not only does the developer make a profit due to someone else picking up the slack, but also the property owner as their value rises as the infrastructure and community facilities are improved.

In NSW this was countered by what is called Section 94 contributions - these allow Councils to charge developers to enable Councils to improve infrastructure and community facilities. Of course house prices go up as developers need to factor these costs into their development costs. I'm sure something similar exists in Adelaide.

Further to s.94 contributions, for the Grow Centres in Sydney, the Government has imposed further levies called the Special Infrastructue Fund (iirc) and this takes an amount from each development in the growth centre and is put together the more regional level infrastructure required to serve it, such as railway lines, arterial roads and so on. I'm sure something similar exists in Adelaide.

Finally, house prices are all about supply and demand. There's plenty of cheap houses around, its just that there isn't much demand to live in those places. This will NEVER ever go away. If you want a cheap house, go buy up in Orroroo or somewhere.

[drwaddles]

Shuz - you're missing the point, the urban sprawl we currently have is what it is and it is here to stay. I accept that we probably don't want to spread further, but we really do need to do something about what we have now - and it means building a freeway - NOW.

Building a freeway now only makes things more difficult for yourself in the future. Why would you want to do that?

Is everyone here familiar with the concept of a travel buget?

“This means that if the transport system is improved, personal choice of employment, shopping, recreation and other activities may be expanded, but the time planned to travel is rarely reduced. In other words, people are prepared to travel further in order to take advantage of employment or shopping opportunities.” (Kirby, 1981:36)

This concept is equally applicable to PT and to private transport. The problem with this freeway, however, is the way that it encourages the dispersion of these trips. So instead of the travel budget being expanded and channelled along desirable lines - such as reducing the waiting time or station access time makes further travel on the rail network attractive - the freeway encoruages these expanded trips to be made here, there and everywhere.

What you end up with is two things:

1. increased congestion and people complaining about how long it takes them to get to work/how much it costs them in tolls/fuel etc. (sound familiar); and
2. Dispersed trips that are extremely difficult to serve by PT, leading people to believe that PT can never be a realistic option and that more freeways are required (again, sound familiar)

Why on earth would you want to go down this path?

Surely even the most hardened pro-road advocate can accept that a logical step forward is to improve PT networks so that the extra travel is channeled into these corridors which are able to serve it well.

[Prince George]

From the Why-partial-solutions-won't-fix-whole-problems Department, Boston recently completed a massive project to take an above ground freeway and submerge it. The Big Dig cost $15 billion and was beset with problems. Now that it's done, they have a green-belt through the city. But it turned out that while congestion in the city itself was improved, it got worse everywhere else.

[TooFar]

From the Why-partial-solutions-won't-fix-whole-problems Department, Boston recently completed a massive project to take an above ground freeway and submerge it. The Big Dig cost $15 billion and was beset with problems. Now that it's done, they have a green-belt through the city. But it turned out that while congestion in the city itself was improved, it got worse everywhere else.

I see your Big Dig report and raise you a Misconceptions and exaggerations about roads from the RAC Foundation UK.

Executive Summary for those with less time.

Introduction
Almost everyone has views on roads and road building, which are coloured by
personal experience, popular beliefs, comment in the media and propaganda.
There are varying, and strongly held views about roads. This executive
summary and the ‘Roads and Reality’ background paper ‘Misconceptions and
exaggerations about road building in Great Britain’ presents the facts, to
debunk the myths.

The key misconceptions examined are:
· Roads occupy large areas of land
· Roads are inefficient users of space compared with railways
· Britain is unusual in relying so much on roads
· New road capacity simply fills up with traffic
· Building new roads will have a material effect on climate change
· Building roads will not benefit low-income groups
· Traffic pollution is getting worse
· The construction industry can not accommodate a substantial increase in
road building
· Building new roads is too costly
· Road traffic does not pay its way and
· Public transport is a ready alternative to the private car

[drwaddles]

Only skimmed a bit of it, but two comments so far:

1. Its by the Royal Automobile Club :wank:
2. They compare the existing conditions of an extensive road network versus a substandard rail network, of course the roads carry more traffic
3. Including rural areas clouds the picture significantly - this debate is relevant only to built up areas

[Prince George]

Well, that does have some pretty eye-opening factoids in it. I almost fell of my chair when I read:

Roads occupy about 1.75% of the surface of Great Britain

It boggles my mind to think that you can measure that usage in terms of whole percentage points rather than some fraction of a percent. Just think about it: if you were an astronaut and you dropped a dart and saw it fall into the UK, you know that there's a better than 1 in 60 chance that it fell on a road of some sort. And if you know that the dart fell in England, then the odds are now 1 in 44.

[AtD]

Well, that does have some pretty eye-opening factoids in it. I almost fell of my chair when I read:

Roads occupy about 1.75% of the surface of Great Britain

It boggles my mind to think that you can measure that usage in terms of whole percentage points rather than some fraction of a percent. Just think about it: if you were an astronaut and you dropped a dart and saw it fall into the UK, you know that there's a better than 1 in 60 chance that it fell on a road of some sort. And if you know that the dart fell in England, then the odds are now 1 in 44.

And that doesn't include road related infrastructure, namely car parking.

[fabricator]

Well, that does have some pretty eye-opening factoids in it. I almost fell of my chair when I read:

Roads occupy about 1.75% of the surface of Great Britain

It boggles my mind to think that you can measure that usage in terms of whole percentage points rather than some fraction of a percent. Just think about it: if you were an astronaut and you dropped a dart and saw it fall into the UK, you know that there's a better than 1 in 60 chance that it fell on a road of some sort. And if you know that the dart fell in England, then the odds are now 1 in 44.

And that doesn't include road related infrastructure, namely car parking.

Its not about how much space roads take up per country, it is about how much they take up of the built up areas. A single railway corridor may have 2 or more parallel 4 lane roads, its a fair bet the railway takes up the same or less space than one 4 lane road. Also rails don't wear at anything like the same rate road surfaces do.

Its not uncommon to find some parts of the city which are all roads, big junctions which cut off access to some land or require messing connecting lanes.

[AG]

Call for CBD tax to ease traffic congestion
MATT WILLIAMS, CITY EDITOR
December 14, 2008 11:30pm
MOTORISTS in the CBD should pay a congestion tax to reduce the State Government's "rush" to introduce essential services levies, a transport expert says.

The controversial proposal by UniSA's Professor Derek Scrafton is one of several measures outlined in an Advertiser survey of six experts and interest groups on transport infrastructure.

Professor Scrafton said charging directly for car use - rather than using registration and fuel taxes - offered many benefits.

"By all means charge for congestion if, like smoking, drinking or gambling, it will provide a ready source of revenue for governments that in turn reduces their rush to find other ways to tax or charge people for more essential services, such as water supply, education and health," he said.

In Britain, motorists are charged up to $22 a day for driving into central London.

Others surveyed by The Advertiser were urban ecologist Paul Downton, the RAA's Sharon Hanlon, SA Freight Council general manager Neil Murphy, People for Public Transport secretary Margaret Dingle and Conservation Council chief Julie Pettett.

Their key suggestions included:

COMPLETING a non-stop, free-flowing South Rd corridor between the Port River Expressway and Southern Expressway with urgency.

ACCELERATING a road maintenance regime.

DEVELOPING more effective fuel-efficient vehicles.



'Calls for inner-city traffic tax to
PAGE 20: Editorial

PAGE 21: Vote line

1

DUPLICATING the Dukes Highway progressively over the next 10 years.

FORMULATING a transport strategic plan.

INCREASING cross-suburban public transport such as a Marion to Mawson Lakes route.

RUNNING bus, train and tram services 24 hours a day.

REDUCING the number of single occupant private vehicles on the road during peak hour.

BUILDING segregated cycle paths.

REVITALISING affordable interstate train services for passengers and freight. There was agreement that consecutive state and federal governments since World War II had failed to plan for 21st century challenges.

Also highlighted were concerns about the poor state of existing road and public transport networks in the face of a growing population and worsening climate change predictions.

Governments also were criticised for bailing out the car manufacturing industry with millions of dollars rather than investing in research and development of alternative transport systems.

Those surveyed say the State Government is "on the right track" with its $2 billion commitment in this year's State Budget to improve public transport but governments need to work together to improve the whole sector.

Transport Minister Patrick Conlon said many of Adelaide's current congestion problems were a "result of works that are happening at the moment" and "an indication of increased economic and business activity". Some short-term congestion problems are part of the "long-term vision," he said.

"However, to ensure congestion levels decrease we have committed hundreds of millions of dollars for major projects along South Rd, including an underpass at Anzac Highway and the Glenelg tram overpass project."

RAA public affairs general manager Sharon Hanlon said travel time data showed congestion on Adelaide's roads was increasing at a higher rate than some eastern states.

"While infrastructure investment will assist to alleviate this rising congestion problem, serious consideration and examination of contra-flow lanes, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, more variable speed limits, extended clearways and much greater use of intelligent transport systems is needed to improve congestion levels," she said.

Internationally acclaimed urban ecologist Dr Paul Downton described SA's roads as "a sprawling, inefficient network that supports the movement of poisonous guided missiles which produce a body count of death and disability equivalent to a small war every year".

"It encourages urban sprawl and has led to us all having a massive dependency on fossil fuels in an energy-expensive, pancake-shaped city where you have to fire up over a tonne of metal, glass and plastic to do the simplest things – like buying a loaf of bread," he said.

Ms Dingle said the way to tackle congestion was "to have a frequent and convenient public transport system that makes people want to leave their cars at home".

Conservation Council chief Ms Pettett said the solution to traffic congestion was "reducing the number of single-occupant private vehicles on the road during peak hour".

"Congestion charges have been very effective – and surprisingly popular – in London, but in Adelaide we can afford to start by offering some carrots, such as improving the frequency, reliability and cost of public transport, dedicated transit lanes for buses, car-pooling incentives and segregated cycle paths," Ms Pettett said.

The Freight Council's Mr Murphy said congestion was "a growing problem of increasing concern to both the business community, and general public alike".

"Improved public transport provides some of the answer in taking traffic off the network, but greater investment . . . to upgrade and maintain the network . . . is the key priority," he said.

The Federal Government last week committed $37 million under its $4.7 billion "nation building" plan to accelerate construction work on the Northern Expressway and bring forward completion by three months.

[Wayno]

and in response by Harbison...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 446264.htm

Congestion tax unnecessary: Harbison

Adelaide Lord Mayor Michael Harbison has rejected the idea of a congestion tax in the CBD.

The Lord Mayor, Michael Harbison, says Adelaide residents are oversensitive about traffic congestion in the city.

A transport expert has suggested that motorists should pay a congestion tax in the CBD. But Mr Harbison says the council is already implementing incentives for drivers who beat the peak-hour traffic.

"We have nothing like what they have in the eastern states, but nevertheless the Adelaide City Council is on its way in this area," he said.

"We've now introduced measures so that people pay up to $50 a week more for their car parking if they're not in the car park by 8:30, that is before the rush starts."

[mattblack]

"While infrastructure investment will assist to alleviate this rising congestion problem, serious consideration and examination of contra-flow lanes, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, more variable speed limits, extended clearways and much greater use of intelligent transport systems is needed to improve congestion levels," she said.

"Congestion charges have been vation Council chief very effective – and surprisingly popular – in London, but in Adelaide we can afford to start by offering some carrots, such as improving the frequency, reliability and cost of public transport, dedicated transit lanes for buses, car-pooling incentives and segregated cycle paths," Ms Pettett said.

These are the things that will help in Adelaides 'congestion'. These, along with a Adelaide ring route to funnel non essential traffic from the CBD is, well, essential before any sort of congestion tax is needed. Places like London, Paris and Amsterdam wich have REAL congestion problems (not the 30-45 minutes of slowed traffic in the morning and night but 14Km of queues on major motorways at 6.30am) have already implemented these messures and have therefore little choice.

Adelaide is evolving from a small to medium sized city, this presents a few problems but valuable lessons can be learnt from the cities that have gone before and failed. The usual solutions come up, invest in infrasture of road/rail and higher dencity living. The concept is not difficult, the finacing will always be a balancing act. I feel we on the right path after many years of inaction and the dire state of the states finaces of the past 20yrs.

[Prince George]

The RAND Corporation has published a collosal report on improving transport and congestion in LA - Moving Los Angeles (PDFs of the full report and the 78-page summary, or you can purchase it to treasure forever!). They were asked to study the areas transport problems and make specific recommendations on tackling it. Now RAND is not a touchy-feely progressive think tank, they're usually accused of being militaristic and their alumni includes Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice, so I found this report to be particularly interesting. The really brief version:

• In the last 30 years, the total Vehicle Miles Travelled has more than doubled, while population grew by less than 50% and the amount of road (presumably highways) have remained almost static.
• Road construction cannot keep up, let alone close the gap, with road use.
• Investment in transit (rail or bus) are good, but by themselves have minimal impact.
• The fundamental problem is that the costs of driving are kept artificially low, so a succesful plan has to address this to control the demand for driving.
• There are three methods that can be used: gas taxes, tollways, and reducing the levels of free parking.
• Gas taxes are political suicide, they're a lost cause.
• Tollways are effective, but are unpopular (as anything with an obvious direct cost is).
• Controlling the level of cheap or free parking is one of their key recommendations.
• Revenues from parking or tolls could (should!) be spent on transit to lower the impact of pricing on poorer segments of the community.

The sections that describe LA and explore why it is that congestion is so bad there are very interesting. Did you know that LA ranks fifth for amount of car ownership (even Seattle has more!), fifth in distances travelled daily, ninth in the percentage of employees driving to work alone? They have more bus and rail transit available than the huge majority of other cities (ranking in the top few cities for bus and rail transit). But among cities of comparable density, nowhere else drives as far. One of the key reasons they point out is that nowhere else provides as much free or cheap parking as LA, which makes driving cheaper in LA than in similar cities (say, NYC or Chicago).

Some choice quotes -

Failure to Charge the Full Costs Associated with Automotive Travel Inflates the Demand for Driving
From an economic perspective, automotive travel is underpriced. Driving a vehicle creates environmental and social costs, such as harmful emissions and additional congestion delays for other travelers. When we choose to drive, we are not forced to pay for these so-called external costs; rather, they are passed along to other members of society, such as drivers traveling in our traffic wake or residents living alongside the freeways on which we travel. Because driving is underpriced, society tends to overconsume road space; that is, we make many trips for which the total costs (including external costs passed on to others) exceed the total benefits. In theoretical terms, this reduces social welfare. In practical terms, it leads to greater traffic congestion and contributes to environmental problems

The Easy Solutions to Congestion Have Already Been Implemented
Congestion is not a new phenomenon, and the easy solutions — those that are effective, inexpensive, and uncontroversial — have long since been applied. Remaining options tend to be costly, controversial, or only moderately effective.

... when traffic conditions on a roadway are improved during peak hours, additional travelers will tend to converge on that newly freed capacity from (1) other times of travel, (2) other routes of travel, or (3) other modes of travel, slowly eroding the initial peak-hour congestion-reduction benefits in the busiest travel corridors.

Only Pricing Strategies Can Produce Sustainable Reductions in Traffic Congestion
... Often described as congestion pricing, examples include charging higher tolls to drive during peak hours or charging higher prices to park in the most convenient curb spaces at the busiest times of day. The main reason that the effectiveness of pricing strategies is not eroded by (the three factors above) is that the same peak-hour charges that encourage some to change their travel patterns also deter others from converging on the freed capacity. Another way of stating this is that pricing strategies represent the only approach that can reduce congestion without inducing additional automotive-travel demand.

As a region, then, L.A.-area stakeholders must summon the political willpower to face a tough decision. Will Los Angeles begin to pursue pricing to manage demand for peak-hour automotive travel, or will it instead simply allow congestion to worsen in the coming decades? These are the only choices.

It's a comprehensive plan and includes a wide range of recommendations - deep-discount transit passes, improved bicycle networks, traffic light synchronisation, promoting telecommuting and flexible workhours, but I found the sections on parking particularly compelling. I recall that Jan Gehl pointed out how oversupplied Adelaide was with parking spaces, and we're continuing to build new ones. How many of our "energy efficient" "green developments" include a substantial carpark? All of them? Perhaps we should start counting the level of parking provided against the ratings of the buildings.

(Edit - the quoted sections had a bunch of compressed characters, like double-fs that were put as a single special character and got rendered as '?'. They worked fine in preview, but not when it was submitted; interesting - can you edit in Unicode but only save to ASCII?)

[Aidan]

I recall that Jan Gehl pointed out how oversupplied Adelaide was with parking spaces, and we're continuing to build new ones.

And yet it's still often hard to get a parking space!

How many of our "energy efficient" "green developments" include a substantial carpark? All of them? Perhaps we should start counting the level of parking provided against the ratings of the buildings.

Making parking provision inadequate won't make our public transport system adequate! And without a good alternative, less parking would make our city worse.

[monotonehell]

And yet it's still often hard to get a parking space!

It is?? What do you class as "hard"? I worked in carparks during uni (2003-2006) and one thing that visitors from Sydney and Melbourne always commented on was how cheap and easy it is to park in Adelaide.

[fabricator]

Just let the ACC install more parking meters, and bump up the cost of parking, same result.