Category: freeways

Sharing the Road. The imperative for government to make it work

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 11/05/2022
No Comments on Sharing the Road. The imperative for government to make it work

Whilst governments are responsible for providing road infrastructure, they also have a responsibility to ensure it is used in the most efficient and effective manner for the benefit of all road users and deliver optimal outcomes for the community as a whole. Contrary to what many motorists might care to believe, roads are not for the exclusive use of cars. They are shared by pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and others and there are rules which are designed to ensure this takes place. Motorists should also remember that the ability to drive a motor vehicle is not a right – it is a privilege and that there are conditions and rules that must be complied with. It is government’s responsibility to ensure these rules are designed and policed/enforced to make it happen.

From an environmental and growing community perspective there is an imperative to travel less and more efficiently. Ideally this means more people getting out of their cars and walking and cycling.

Regrettably, as Natalie Fleming writes (Maurice Blackburn blog), this is not happening.

“There’s a war taking place on our roads – between cyclists and car drivers. At its core, this battle is led by a misunderstanding, from the perspectives of all road users, about equal rights on the road. Each party is frustrated with the other – car drivers are angry with the way cyclists ride, and cyclists are concerned about being injured by oblivious drivers. All these concerns are warranted, but what can we do to bring peace between the parties? Eighty-five per cent of cyclist collisions involve another vehicle. Common accidents include

cyclist being side swiped by an approaching vehicle
dooring – when the cyclist collides with a vehicle door suddenly opened in front of them
when the cyclist is hit from behind.”

The latest figures report 45 cyclist deaths on Australian roads in 2014, while 5500 cyclists were hospitalised in 2012 due to road accidents. Even a small knock can lead to devastating permanent injuries”.

Fleming argues the importance of drivers understanding the vulnerability of cyclists and their right to use the road safely, but that is only part of the solution and it is too easy to blame motorists. What we are witnessing is system failure in which there are no simple or single fix solutions and overlook the critical role of government, which has the responsibility for creating the conditions which make this happen. This includes creating the social climate and culture which enables people to comply willingly and respectfully based on a better understanding of why this important. Addressing this requires unpacking the “system” to understand how it works, identify key levers for change and ways in which these can be used effectively.

The list of levers required in this situation is long and requires action at many levels. Donella Meadows in her paper

“Places to Intervene in A System” provides a list of the types of levers that can be used, in increasing order of effectiveness.

9. Numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards).

8. Material stocks and flows.

7. Regulating negative feedback loops.

6. Driving positive feedback loops.

5. Information flows.

4. The rules of the system (incentives, punishment, constraints).

3. The power of self-organization.

2. The goals of the system.

1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise.

All of the above can be applied, individually or in combination in this situation but the last is the most important. If the State government has the mindset to change the “system” all levers can be used effectively. If not, there will be no change of any significance, in which case road rage and cycling trauma will continue and probably escalate and the ability to meet our social and environmental goals will be jeopardised.

best practice freeways governance government policy megaprojects

Lack of a Transport Plan Slammed by the VAGO

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 17/08/2021
No Comments on Lack of a Transport Plan Slammed by the VAGO

Transport for Melbourne (TfM) and other well qualified transport forums have been constantly reminding the State government of the need for a transport plan. This is mandated under the Transport Integration Act (TIA), so we are relieved that at long last the Victorian Government Audit Office has finally taken the government to task.

However this has fallen on deaf ears and the government continues to insist it has a plan. TfM would respectfully point out that a series of schemes that were developed independently does not constitute a plan. If the government has a plan it needs to tell us what it is, but it is important the government be reminded what constitutes a plan in the context of the TIA. Ultimately it is the quality and relevance of the plan that matters and that is a governance issue.

Quoting from the Transport Integration Act

The transport plan must—

(a) set the planning framework within which transport bodies are to operate;

(b) set out the strategic policy context for transport;

(d) be prepared having regard to the vision statement, transport system objectives and decision making principles;

(e) be prepared having regard to national transport and infrastructure priorities;

(f) demonstrate an integrated approach to transport and land use planning;

(g) identify the challenges that the transport plan seeks to address;

(h) include a short term action plan that is regularly updated.

Almost all of the above are ignored by the current government. The government’s plan comprises an ad-hoc bunch of mega infrastructure projects including the Big Build program and others and a handful of strategies developed by the Department of Transport for different elements of the transport portfolio some of which are poorly developed. There is no vision to guide the plan, or strategic policy context apart from using it to create jobs and win government at the next election, and no attempt to identify the challenges facing us in the future. Government planning remains based largely on the continuation of business as usual.

It was clear from our last TfM forum, The Future We Must Plan For, it will not be business as usual. Covid has demonstrated the vulnerability of our economy and how quickly it can be disrupted. This event is only one of many that is likely to impact our economy and our way of life in the future. The latest IPCC report should be a stark reminder that the future we must plan for is changing rapidly. It will be dominated by environmental change and become a very different world to the one we live in today. This must be reflected in transport planning. The State government’s Big Build program does not anticipate any of this and as a consequence will ultimately result in stranded assets that have no value in the future and a burden of debt.

The absence of a properly constituted plan prescribed by the TIA is a concern but of even greater concern is the lack of checks and balances and proper process by which it has been progressed.

A transport plan must be developed and implemented in a way that is transparent, and follow processes which ensure its integrity and accountability. This requires a framework for assessing and ranking programs and projects in terms of their contribution to the “vision”.

It is critical that priority is given to actions that deliver the greatest return. Such actions are not confined to formal programs or projects. They may include policy and regulatory change, changes in works practices which can result in improvements in operational efficiency and improved customer service that generate better outcomes.

Achieving these goals may require recruitment and training supported by appropriate organisational structures to ensure government is provided with high quality advice and skills to develop and implement policy and ensure proper process is carried out, conducted in an environment which encourages communication of frank and fearless advice to government based on best practice. There is plenty of scope for improvement in this area; it would be a good place to start and that should be part of the plan.

These actions can provide the basis for the development of formal programs and projects funded from working expenses or capital budgets but again the priority must be given to those which generate the highest return on investment.

TfM has long held the view that governments should focus first on the existing “system” and its supporting infrastructure and make it as good as possible before building new. There is no shortage of transport infrastructure, but much of it is poorly maintained, in need of renewal and not used efficiently. This is a critical issue but needs to be addressed as part of the plan and funded accordingly.

Maintenance is usually funded from recurrent budgets instead of capital. It also tends to be tightly constrained so there is pressure to do more with less and focus on measurable outcomes. Investment in this area is therefore likely to be well targeted, yield high rates of return on investment as well as being subjected to a high level of scrutiny and accountability.

Benefits from capital works projects are more difficult to assess and have the potential to be subject to political influence or used for political purposes. Benefits also take longer to be realised, sometimes many years, often long after the minister or government responsible for the project has moved on. This makes it more difficult to audit and hold those responsible to account. As a general rule returns on capital investment vary inversely with the size and cost of the project and mega infrastructure projects have a particularly poor record. The Westgate Tunnel project is a good example but there are plenty more in the government’s Big Build pipeline.

Despite these problems capital works projects continue to dominate transport planning today in terms of publicity and budget allocations, and for many, particularly politicians, perceived to be the essence of a transport plan today.

It is argued that investment in capital infrastructure can be a lazy way to address transport problems. It promotes a mindset that says problems can be solved simply by throwing money at it without the need to understand the business itself and how it can be improved. This mindset is often reinforced by the belief that the bigger and more expensive the project the better the outcome. Under this scenario it is little wonder transport outcomes in this State have been so poor for so many years. This will continue so long as governments prioritise the least efficient and least effective measures to improve our transport system ie capital investment, particularly in major infrastructure projects whilst ignoring or underfunding far more effective mechanisms outlined above.

VAGO is absolutely right to criticise the State government for not having a transport plan. However TfM’s greatest concern is the quality and relevance of the plan and the political environment in which it is created. It is also important that transport planning not exist in a vacuum and must reflect broader environmental obligations including global emission reduction targets which must also be achieved for the transport system as a whole. This must be included in the transport plan and given top priority. All of this requires political leadership, courage, good governance and the environment required to create it. Achieving this will require fundamental changes of a systemic nature – without this we cannot expect better transport outcomes.

The importance of good governance has been highlighted by the covid pandemic. Governments at both State and Federal levels have been forced to listen to medical experts and appropriate institutional structures have existed for them to provide advice. For the most part this advice has been accepted but there have been occasions when politicians have ignored it thinking they knew better, and we have seen the consequences measured in loss of life.

Unfortunately political respect for independent expert advice does not always extend to government departments, which have often become politicised. Too often government ministers and their too commonly unqualified advisors think they know best and poorly treat those who should be providing them with expert advice. This is reflected in poor outcomes, not just in transport but all government portfolios. Addressing this will become increasingly critical if we are to have any success in responding to the challenges that lie ahead, particularly those driven by climate and environmental change.

Tags disaster, poor planning, VAGO

best practice freeways governance government policy megaprojects

WestGate Tunnel Project Another “Big Build” Disaster

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 15/08/2021
No Comments on WestGate Tunnel Project Another “Big Build” Disaster

This project was always a disaster waiting to happen. It is a terrible project and should never have been contemplated let alone built in the first place. It was not part of any transport plan, although to be fair the State government does not have a plan. It is just a project bowled up to the State government by Transurban, an unsolicited bid designed to strengthened its position as a toll road operator, which the government bought because it helped its image of getting on with the job and would create jobs in the construction industry. The case against it is included in the papers section on this web site and have referred to it in an earlier blog.

Lack of feasibility studies and planning was always problematic and has doomed this project. Like all mega infrastructure projects promoted by the State government today, they are rushed to suit political objectives and tenders are called before the design work is carried out. It is a bit like quoting to build a house when you have no idea what the building will look like or the ground conditions on which it will be built. The risk is huge and must be built into the tender price. Everyone knew or should have known that the ground through which the tunnel was to be bored would be heavily contaminated but this was never properly tested so it is no surprise this has become a serious issue and stalled the project at enormous cost.

Quoting Timna Jacks and Patric Hatch “The Age has confirmed with sources close to the project that the joint building venture, CPB Contractors and John Holland, is claiming the project has blown out by as much as $5.2 billion. The dispute centres on the handling of about 3 million tonnes of soil, with an unknown portion of it believed to be contaminated with perand polyfluoroalkyl chemicals – the potential carcinogens known as PFAS”. “PFAS” is so toxic there is no safe way to dispose it but the State government is trying to have it reclassified as a less toxic chemical and has been struggling to find a site where it can be safely stored.

So who is going to pay for this costly mess? The premier has rightly argued that this was not the government’s project “ Transurban came to the government with this project, they chose the builder so they need to sort it out with the builder”. But will it end up like the East West Link where the government ended up paying more than $1billion to cancel the contract after declaring that it could be cancelled at little or no cost?

Whatever the outcome we the broader community will be the losers. Apart from the waste of public funds on a project we don’t need, the opportunity cost of not investing in projects and programs of real need is huge. But perhaps the greatest cost will be ongoing failure of governance, absence of proper process, lack of integrity and breach of public trust. These issues have been nomalised under this government and we will continue to pay a huge price if they are not addressed.

Tags disaster, westgate tunnel

advocacy public policy sustainability governance freeways governance motorways public transport traffic congestion value for money

Does expanding motorways really reduce congestion?

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 26/10/2020
No Comments on Does expanding motorways really reduce congestion?

The short answer to this question is no, and they usually result in increased emissions.

The evidence is presented in the following article by Simon Kingham, professor University of Canterbury NZ which was published in The Conversation Au edition 7th October 2020

Historically, building more and wider roads, including motorways, was seen as a way of reducing congestion. This in turn is supposed to lower emissions.

Fuel efficiency is optimised for driving at around 80kmh and it decreases the faster you go above that. But with speed limits up to 110kmh, people are likely to drive above 80kmh on motorways — and this means building and expanding motorways will actually increase emissions.

Many countries, especially in Europe, are now looking to lower speed limits partly to reduce emissions.

New roads, new drivers

The most significant impact new and expanded motorways have on congestion and emissions is the effect on the distance people travel.

Historically, engineers assumed cars (and more pertinently their drivers) would behave like water. In other words, if you had too much traffic for the road space provided, you would build a new road or expand an existing one and cars would spread themselves across the increased road space.

Unfortunately, this is not what happens. New road capacity attracts new drivers. In the short term, people who had previously been discouraged from using congested roads start to use them.

In the longer term, people move further away from city centres to take advantage of new roads that allow them to travel further faster.

This is partly due to the “travel time budget” — a concept also known as Marchetti’s constant — which suggests people are prepared to spend around an hour a day commuting. Cities tend to grow to a diameter of one-hour travel time.

The concept is supported by evidence that cities have sprawled more as modes of transport have changed. For example, cities were small when we could only walk, but expanded along transport corridors with rail and then sprawled with the advent of cars. This all allows commuters to travel greater distances within the travel time budget.

Building or expanding roads releases latent demand — widely defined as “the increment in new vehicle traffic that would not have occurred without the improvement of the network capacity”.

This concept is not new. The first evidence of it can be found back in the 1930s. Later research in 1962 found that “on urban commuter expressways, peak-hour traffic congestion rises to meet maximum capacity”.

A considerable body of evidence is now available to confirm this. But, despite this indisputable fact, many road-improvement decisions continue to be based on the assumption that extra space will not generate new traffic.

If you build it, they will drive

A significant change occurred in 1994 when a report by the UK Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Appraisal confirmed road building actually generates more traffic.

In New Zealand, this wasn’t acknowledged until the Transport Agency’s 2010 Economic Evaluation Manual, which said:

[…] generated traffic often fills a significant portion (50–90%) of added urban roadway capacity.

Some congestion discourages people from driving (suppresses latent demand), but with no congestion traffic will fill road space over time, particularly in or near urban areas.

Interestingly, the opposite can also work. Where road space is removed, demand can be suppressed and traffic reduces without other neighbouring roads becoming overly congested.

One of the best examples of this is the closure of the Cheonggyecheon Freeway in the middle of Seoul, South Korea.

When the busy road was removed from the city, rather than the traffic moving to and congesting nearby roads, most of the traffic actually disappeared, as Professor Jeff Kenworthy from Curtin University’s Sustainable Policy Institute notes.

This suppression of latent demand works best when good alternative ways of travel are available, including high-quality public transport or separated cycle lanes.

The short answer to the question about road building and expansion is that new roads do little to reduce congestion, and they will usually result in increased emissions.

Tags failure of governance, State Government, Victoria