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
