Challenge Number One - understanding the problem: car use vs traffic congestion

Barry Broe,
Divisional Manager,
Brisbane Infrastructure,
Brisbane City Council.

Dear Mr Broe,

I recently attended a forum organised by the Society of Sustainability & Environmental Engineering called: “South East Queensland’s Transport System in the Peak Oil and Climate Change Era”. I particularly enjoyed your opening remarks about understanding the problem of “car use” vs the problem of “traffic congestion”.

The remainder of your speech was contrary to your opening remarks, with a focus on so-called “congestion busting” by duplication and augmentation of roads for private motor vehicles. I took exception to your comment “when the Northern Link goes in & it will go in”. I shall be working very hard to lobby my political representatives (cc:d) to make sure the Northern Link does not “go in” if it is going to be a four lane motor way for motor vehicles. I am celebrating the fact that the Northern Link has not attracted any federal funding.

My expertise is in water & sanitation. I see a lot of parallels in the mistakes we make with sewage and the way we deal with traffic. I am convinced we need to separate our Number ones from our Number twos at source rather than mix them, pump them vast distances and then try to separate them out again. The same applies to Public Transport and private motor vehicles. Until we separate the streams, we cannot efficiently treat the associated issues appropriately.

The distinction between sewers and roads is when one duplicates a sewer main, it does not encourage more people to poo.

Regards,

Rowan Barber
Climate Campaigner
http://www.climatejusticefast.com/

Another Letter to Campbell Newman

Campbell Newman
Lord Mayor
Brisbane City Council


Dear Lord Mayor,

I am frustrated by both the State and Brisbane City Council using reductions in GHG emissions as an excuse to build more politically popular infrastructure for motor vehicles (such as the Northern Link Tunnel).

The more roads one builds, the more lanes one adds, the more congestion one busts, the more it encourages people to drive.

From BBC's annual report:

In partnership with the Queensland Government, Council is developing a common,
intelligent, integrated road network management system to improve the coordination of the city’s 7000 kilometre road network. A pilot of the traffic signals component of the project was conducted at Indooroopilly in 2008 and demonstrated how traffic can be streamlined by synchronising traffic signals on both Council and Queensland Government-owned roads. The Indooroopilly pilot demonstrated a saving of approximately 3800 tonnes in carbon emissions per year through the reduction of travel time.

Did one take into account all the additional trips that will be made when traffic flows more freely? Does one take into account the return of congestion once equilibrium is established at a higher traffic volume?

My expertise is in water, sanitation and carbon accounting not traffic engineering. However I see a lot of parallels between the problems we are encountering on SEQ roads and the problems I have encountered in sewers. The congestion of sewers is often caused by consumer behaviour. People put things down the sewer that do not belong there (like dead pets and sump oil). The distinction between sewage and traffic is when one builds a new sewer it does not encourage people to poo more.

Is there a more robust means of GHG emissions accounting to counter the circular arguments presented to justify more "congestion busting" roads?

regards,

Rowan Barber