Rail up to 60 per cent cheaper than road in reducing congestion

[ozbob]

ARA Media release 

http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/file/Media%20Releases/14-01-30%20Rail-up-to-60-percent-cheaper-than-road-in-reducing-congestion.pdf

Rail up to 60 per cent cheaper than road in reducing congestion

MEDIA RELEASE

30 January 2014

Rail up to 60% cheaper than road in reducing congestion

An economic study has found that investing in rail is the most cost effective transport solution to reduce road congestion in Australia's two fastest growing cities – Brisbane and Perth.

Commissioned by the Australasian Railway Association (ARA), the 'Value of Action versus the Cost of Inaction' study found that investing in rail instead of roads would cost 57 per cent less in Brisbane and 38 per cent less in Perth and would achieve the same reduction in traffic congestion.

ARA Chief Executive, Bryan Nye said the study confirms that investment in rail provides greater value for money than roads and is a more cost effective option to reducing congestion in our cities.

"To halve Brisbane's congestion levels, 2300km of roads would be required, costing an estimated $46 billion, whereas rail could achieve the same reduction in congestion for 57 per cent less or a $20 billion investment," said Mr Nye.

"Similarly, to reduce congestion in Perth by 50 per cent, $40 billion for 2000km of roads would be required while a $25 billion or 38 per cent lower rail investment would achieve the same congestion reduction.

"Congestion is costly. It causes slower road speeds, longer travel times, heightened pollution, and increased vehicle running costs, all of which affect the productivity of a city and the nation.

"Brisbane commuters currently lose 11 million hours and Perth commuters lose 14 million hours annually stuck in traffic.

"If we continue as we are, between now and 2031, without investment or action to reduce congestion, it will cost the city of Brisbane $48 billion and Perth $33 billion in economic and social costs," said Mr Nye.

The study quantifies the road versus rail investments required to halve congestion levels in the two cities.

"Halving congestion would remove 127,000 cars from Brisbane roads and 163,000 cars in Perth each peak hour, giving the average Brisbane and Perth commuter an extra 73 hours per year, the equivalent of almost two weeks annual leave," Mr Nye continued.

"Australia needs public transport investment for our cities to remain important engines of our national economy. Investment in modern, efficient, high capacity heavy and light rail is a vital element of the solution to congestion," he said.

The ARA commissioned Synergies Economic Consulting to complete the study. The full report is available online here and a two-page summary of the report is available here.
-ENDS-

[#Metro]

I'm always extraordinarily skeptical of economic modelling and some of the value judgements that they come packaged with. Reality must take precedence over anything else because it is the only frame of reference that gives accurate and reliable results in the real world.

Perth does have high car dependance and congestion. After the construction of extensive rail passenger numbers have increased - but the city of Perth STILL has high car dependance and congestion. It seems barely a dent has been made on these fronts. The reports own data shows that barely any change has happened on local and arterial roads - its the motorway that appears to have issues and not only that the analysis proceeds as if the busway system doesn't exist. Bazillions have been spent on that!

The SE busway at full peak load carries about 7 lanes of traffic. The SE Freeway has about 4 lanes. Therefore at the height of peak hour, operating under their one-for-one paradigm, we should see 7 lanes - 4 lanes = negative 2 lanes of traffic (i.e. the entire SE freeway is empty at the height of peak hour).

There are also 2-dimensional spatial restrictions on what can go where. A rail line (or any transit line for that matter) just cannot land anywhere on a map. There are also homes and the politics of demolishing them as well, which have been uncosted. Plus lead time - the longer a project takes to construct, the lower the stream of benefits that project will yield.

The whole WEBS and agglomeration thing puts me off as well. If people could not access the CBD, jobs would disperse around SEQ setting up in places like Toowong, Logan, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, and so forth. So I think you would still have these businesses.

The issue is framed in such a way that more concrete is proposed as the solution and that it is a lack of infrastructure/finances that is the core problem. It has a confused metric which implies that more inputs (spending / 'investment') equals better outcomes. As we all know, it is OUTPUTS that really matter and the allocation of the spending that is important. Anyone can spend up big and have low actual impact - the $465 million for just 1km of busway at Stones Corner proves this point.

Within Brisbane, there will be Cross River Rail. Apart from that we have infrastructure pouring out of our ears - 85 train stations within the BCC area is more stations than the entire Toronto TTC subway system, and that's before we even get to the busway network + ferry.

The increased fares on public transport also play a role, higher fares mean that any benefits will also be reduced.

As petrol tax revenue dwindles and technology improves, charging for route-km used on roads will become more accepted. That's one solution. The other is to run high frequency on the remaining lines that have not been upgraded as of 20th January 2014 (this will come with new trains) and the last bastion of reform - the BCC bus network reform.

[Jonno]

Or we recognise that what we have built is unaffordable, unhealthy, ugly, socially exclusive, environmentally damaging then choose to do thing differently and reap the benefits as others leading cities are doing!!!!  Enough reasesrch More bloody change!!!