Govt should explore transport demand management options before committing to costly infrastructure

While it’s good news the Government has found a much cheaper alternative to Cross-River Rail, before committing billions of dollars to an underground rail and bus network (see this morning’s Courier-Mail report), the Government should ensure it has fully considered transport demand management options to ease congestion. Some of these measures may well avoid or defer the need for new infrastructure in the short to medium-term. Such measures could include:

  • optimising train and bus fares so much higher fares are charged during peak times (e.g. 7-9am, 5-6pm) to encourage people to travel outside of these peak times;
  • congestion charging for travel in the CBD, as recommended by the Henry tax review, with higher rates during peak times to reduce congestion;
  • staggering the start and finish times of public servants (i.e. so not everyone comes in at 8-9am and leaves at 5-6pm), and encouraging private sector firms to do the same, as discussed by me in Increased train frequency unviable; and
  • pressuring Brisbane City Council to ease restrictions on development in the inner city to allow much higher population densities, which would result in more people cycling or walking to work (see my post Benefits of higher urban population density – more cycling and walking to work).

I’ve posted before on how we need a comprehensive review of transport policy in SEQ:

SEQ’s extensive but costly public transport system requires thorough review

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Transport and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Govt should explore transport demand management options before committing to costly infrastructure

  1. William G says:

    Fares are already high, we don’t need to pay more, especially when many people have no say in their work start and finish times. It would of been fine for the government in conjunction with the private sector to build a proper Cross River Rail as the demand will be there. We don’t know if the alternative will be adequate, were as the CRC allows for a huge expansion of the rail network.

  2. Jim Carlton says:

    New industrial estates should consider allotting a portion to multi-housing so that workers travelling expenses are negated instead of developing dwellings in far flung areas thus placing strain on infrastructure costs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s