Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Greens want induced traffic to be scrutinised

By johnboy 7 June 2011 27

The Greens Amanda Bresnan is calling for a change to the way the ACT Government plans road projects.

Sadly not to build bigger and better roads, but rather they want us to consider the ways that less roads will lead to less road use.

Amanda Bresnan, ACT Greens transport spokesperson, cited a new report from the Victorian Auditor General, which criticised the Victorian Roads Authority for failing to assess the induced traffic caused by new roads. This results in an overestimating of the benefits of the road, “giving decision-makers false confidence about the capacity of the improved road network to cope with future traffic.”

“This is exactly the issue that the ACT Greens have repeatedly raised with the ACT Government, and which it continues to ignore. The ACT Government is committing the same faults that are criticised in this report,” said Ms Bresnan.

“The number one recommendation of the report is that the roads authority take account of the significance of induced traffic. This concept recognises that building major new roads increases the amount of travel and traffic, creating an overall increase in fuel and greenhouse emissions, and fails to reduce commuters’ travel times.”

“The ACT Government’s website on Majura Parkway continues to claim that a new Majura Parkway will ‘relieve traffic congestion’ and ‘reduce greenhouse gases’. This is exactly the kind of claim that the Victorian Auditor General has criticised.”

Somewhat predictably the Greens would like more public transport instead.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
27 Responses to
Greens want induced traffic to be scrutinised
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
PM 4:09 pm 08 Jun 11

My understanding of the report is that is criticises the Vic Government for several faults, including the fact it does not consider the impact of induced traffic.

We have seen that sort of fault in the ACT with the failure to duplicate the GDE extension from the start, resulting in a relatively more costly exercise later.

Basically, the metrics used by engineers, project managers, designers, etc for transport are incorrect. As I stated, in certain circumstances this could mean we should change the metrics to ensure more lanes are built.

I believe in public transport, including light rail, although if all we take away from this is the need to improve public transport we are entirely missing the point of the auditor’s recommendations.

Don’t forget, induced traffic may well exist in a public transport scenario as well. We should challenge government on its claims of cars, passenger numbers, etc whether we are talking about roads or public transport.

I suggest the Greens have latched onto one aspect of the report for the benefit of public transport and not public administration in general.

damien haas 8:27 pm 07 Jun 11

I think if we take our political blinders off and look at what the Greens actually said you will find that its actually a quite sensible question to ask. Why do we accept the claims made that are used to justify building more roads?

The Majura Park Road upgrade will mainly benefit the trucks carrying freight from the Airport to the Federal Highway – that will be the reason it will receive federal government money.

These other claims regarding reduced congestion etc are just false. it caries 17,000 cars a day now, do you think that number will decrease when its changed to two lanes each way ?

Logic says it will not.

I am not saying you dont upgrade the road, because I have used it and it needs upgrading, but to thrust this road upgrade forward to Infrastructure Australia as the ACT’s PRIMARY infrastructure project is just bizarre – however totally instep with ACT Govt thinking.

Thr total cost of this road project will exceed what would be required to build light rail from Gungahlin to Civic. What do you think will deliver a greater long term benefit to ACT residents ?

Most of the commuters who fill the Majura Road from Gungahlin are commuting. Build a proper public transport system that would let them commute quickly, reliably and comfortably – and they will use it. This will reduce road congestion, and decrease the need to build more major roads.

Lets circle back to the report though. What I use when lobbying for public transport is evidence. Looking at claims made to justify all transport infrastructure investment is important, all claims should be scrutinised. maybe this sort of scrutiny would have delivered a properly funded GDE instead of a never ending construction zone which has caused more road congestion than it has ‘solved’.

The Frots 4:46 pm 07 Jun 11

Jim Jones said :

And, for the record, can I get this straight: You admit that you haven’t read the report or the release in question, but this isn’t important because “Learning has been one of my constant companions over many, many years”?

Perhaps you could let me know what institution you’ve attended, or book you’ve read, that suggests that ignorance on a topic doesn’t matter as long as you’ve spent lots of time at university?

I actually replied to this earlier but it was probably moderated – and quite rightly so in hindsight.

Your ‘for the record’ comment? Unless your writing my biography, what ‘record’ are you referring to?

My education level – and yours for that matter – is irrelevant to the issue. The Greens policy overall is one that I find generally distasteful due to the impacts it has or is required to have on us – a lot of it unnecessary I feel. There are people who subscribe to this site who are much better informed and qualified than me to comment on Greens issues specifically – and perhaps they are a bit better qualified overall that yourself as well – though that will be our little secret won’t it!

Classified 3:56 pm 07 Jun 11

zippyzippy said :

Ok, so the report is pointing out that the Vic Govt ignored the fact that building the new road capacity makes it fill up with cars. I think the point is that government should look at other solutions like good public transport, not just build bigger and more roads expecting they will solve the problem. The lanes fill up with congestion – ie more capacity ‘induces’ more trips, more driving, longer trips etc. And even in the case that a Govt does decide to build a road with the view of solving congestion, it needs to accurately forecast the traffic, including the induced traffic. But this should also change their assessment of the benefits of the road – they’ll have to acknowledge that it will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions, probably increase the number of accidents, increase the sprawl of the city, keep numbers away from public transport etc.

Has anyone done any numbers as to the volume of traffic that could be expected to be induced? No doubt there are a series of variables that would have to be considered, including things like the existing volume of traffic, the magnitude of the road improvement, access from new feeder areas, etc.

Surely a good solution would have to include both public and personal transport, with appropriate incentives to get people onto public transport while still providing utility for whom public transport is not viable.

Jim Jones 3:07 pm 07 Jun 11

zippyzippy said :

Ok, so the report is pointing out that the Vic Govt ignored the fact that building the new road capacity makes it fill up with cars. I think the point is that government should look at other solutions like good public transport, not just build bigger and more roads expecting they will solve the problem. The lanes fill up with congestion – ie more capacity ‘induces’ more trips, more driving, longer trips etc. And even in the case that a Govt does decide to build a road with the view of solving congestion, it needs to accurately forecast the traffic, including the induced traffic. But this should also change their assessment of the benefits of the road – they’ll have to acknowledge that it will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions, probably increase the number of accidents, increase the sprawl of the city, keep numbers away from public transport etc.

What a pleasant change to have some informed thinking based on intelligent analyses of the actual sources.

Thank you.

zippyzippy 2:28 pm 07 Jun 11

Ok, so the report is pointing out that the Vic Govt ignored the fact that building the new road capacity makes it fill up with cars. I think the point is that government should look at other solutions like good public transport, not just build bigger and more roads expecting they will solve the problem. The lanes fill up with congestion – ie more capacity ‘induces’ more trips, more driving, longer trips etc. And even in the case that a Govt does decide to build a road with the view of solving congestion, it needs to accurately forecast the traffic, including the induced traffic. But this should also change their assessment of the benefits of the road – they’ll have to acknowledge that it will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions, probably increase the number of accidents, increase the sprawl of the city, keep numbers away from public transport etc.

Postalgeek 2:28 pm 07 Jun 11

PM said :

Not sure what the Greens are wanting here.

Money diverted from new roads to improving public transport, at a guess, as building new roads to relieve congestion is a Sisyphean task.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site