Corridors Matter but do not Neglect

Connectivity in the System as a Whole!

Professor David A. Hensher FASSAInstitute of Transport and Logistics Studies

Faculty of Economics and BusinessThe University of Sydney

June 18-19 2008

BITRE ColloquiumCanberra

Some Big Themes

Transport Themes

• Accessibility• Connectivity• Doing better with what works• Roads serve Public Transport and

Freight Activity• Multiple agents in value chains• Blind Commitment vs. Choice

– Technology fixation– LRT and/or Busway

Systems– Heavy Rail

• Value for Money

Common Themes

• Strategic Thinking• Wealth (who pays)

– Willingness to pay– Ability to pay

• Priority• Sustainability• Affordability• Funding and PPP’s• Service Quality and Value for

Money• Demographics• Aging Population• Incentives• Popularist views (informed and

uninformed???)

The story about the system and the relevant PT

Subtitle – relatively too much focus on projects and corridors

Which is fine if it passes the system test in terms of maximising net social benefit

Connectivity is more important than density per se

Fixed Guideway (BRT, LRT…) What densities?

Appealing but……

Rail Thinking

Informed Bus Thinking

This looks like what Sydney needs

Warning (Reminder)

With so much focus on corridors in metro areas we simply will not have the money to fix the network or

system Sydney: At least 50-60% passenger trip activity not

served by corridors in place or proposed

Frequency and Connectivity in addition to Scale

• If we want to focus on a future with PT, then• Network-based Frequency and connectivity (and

visibility) is what it is all about and this can be accommodated by– Flexible PT.– PT should be encouraged to be innovative in its delivery of

frequency and connectivity– Serious focus on feeders and trunks – ‘networks not corridors’

• Furthermore given Australian OD densities, bus based systems (BRT) are ideal. – They also are deliverable from the private sector and small

(efficient) operators. – Value for money

Total infrastructure costs per kilometre ($m2006)

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

Bosto

n

Nagoy

a

Pittsbu

rgh

(Wes

t Bus

way)

Brisba

ne

Sydne

y

Miam

i

Sao P

aulo

Los A

ngele

s

Pittsbu

rgh

(MLK

Eas

t Bus

way)

Amste

rdam

Eindho

ven

Bogot

a

Ottawa

Rouen

Adelai

de

Quito

(Tro

le)

Beijing

Orland

o

Curitib

a

Pittsbu

rgh

(Sou

th B

usway

)

Eugen

e

Crawley

Pereir

a

Mex

ico C

ity

Guaya

quil

Quito

(Cen

tral N

otre

)

Goiania

Porto

Ale

gre

Seoul

Jaka

rta

Quito

(Eco

via)

Leon

Kunm

ing

Hangz

hou

Taipei

BRT System

Mili

on

$U

S p

er k

ilom

etre

Hensher, D.A. and Golob, T.F. (2008) Bus rapid transit systems – A comparative assessment. Transportation, 34, 667-679.

Summary results for Various Policy Instruments ($2007)(Policy enacted from 2009) Melbourne

Indicators 10c/km congestion charge

– CBD

10c/km variable user charge –

metro area

Increase petrol price to $3 per

litre

Rail and bus fares reduced

by 50%

Fuel efficiency improvement

by 25%

Busway Central-Inner East- Middle

East Reduce invehicle

time by 20% Auto operating cost VehOpCost negligible -4.73% 115.23 0.016 -24.9 negligible Government revenue ($)

TCong, TVuC ($) $5m 1.947E+09 - - - - TGovtExcise -0.162 -4.755% 200 -0.664 -21.8 -0.011 TGovtPark -0.135 -5.12% -9.6 -5.9 1.37 -0.011 TgovtPT 0.059 85.27% 35.2 -42.5 -5.77 0.013 TGovtSales

-0.001 0.436% 5.54

(downsizing) -0.75 -0.92 -0.001

TGovtVehReg -0.001 3.471% -2.0 -0.71 0.35 negligible Total end user cost TEUC.MoneyC 0.141 29.65% 64.2 -6.8 -12.1 0.001 TEUC.TimeC 0.004 9.24% -11.1 -3.9 2.16 -0.008 Consumer surplus: Mode and departure time (TEMUDTMC) 0.075 10.53% 194

-59.4

-43.0

-0.027

Commuter Mode growth*

TDA -0.028 -10.58% -12.25 -6.2 1.98 -0.005 TRS -0.026 11.65% -12.85 -5.8 2.11 -0.005 TTrain 0.028 73.3% 37.54 8.19 -6.07 -0.003 TBus 0.031 74.0% 37.9 77.95 -6.02 -0.004 TLight Rail 0.139 11.5% 18.5 -5.8 -3.16 -0.001 TBwy 1.039 154.8% 22.79 -6.3 -3.90 0.819 Greenhouse gas emissions

TCO2 (kg) -0.16 -4.75% -12.52 -0.664 -21.8 -0.001 Passenger vehicle kms TVKM (km) -0.167 -4.686% -11.88 -0.674 4.11 negligible

Road Infrastructure and Public Transport

• Rethinking Infrastructure– A Super HOT lane and Premium Tolls etc

• Keep the car users happy!• Premium tolls• Toll differential revenue used to support public transport• Win win?

– Non-car lanes• Buses are scarce• Car users complain about under-utilised bus lanes• So put the trucks in there and cars win• So do trucks

– All tolled roads in future should have dedicated busways all the way for the long haul commuter etc

• Do not mix with short haul feeder as suggested yesterday

It is about Accessibility vs. Mobility

• Generally, mobility is closely related to the level of service provided on the transport system. – Higher levels of service represent lower costs per kilometre

of travel.

– Thus, increases in capacity of the system will almost always lead to an increase in mobility.

• Accessibility, however, is related to destinations, and therefore requires attention both to land use patterns and to the quality of destinations.

Thank You

Think Networks and not Corridors