I've responded to this at more length at my own blog.

In short, however, the author is making a number of counterintuitive assumptions:
* firstly, that people won't use extra time for "socially or economically beneficial purposes". If I spend my extra time playing video games or watching reruns of Neighbours, if I'd prefer it to commuting that's a "socially or economically beneficial purpose" in my book.
* Secondly, that if people are making journeys because the benefits to them outweigh the costs (let's ignore costs foisted on others such as the cost of pollution for the moment, though they are obviously important) and a freeway allows more people to make journeys at the same speed as before, isn't that a net societal benefit?
* Thirdly, isn't sprawl at least partly the result of (some) people preferring to live in big houses on city fringes rather than smaller houses closer to their work? If so, isn't it plausible that these people regard freeways enabling them to do so as improving their lives?

Don't get me wrong, freeways are very problematic, not least because of the societal costs of transport (pollution, particularly), and I personally prefer to live in a densely populated, walkable inner suburb. But the specific arguments raised in the article do bother me.

With respect to the transport industry's use of toll roads, it is common practise for them to avoid toll roads unless explicitly instructed to do so by the client, or where there is a legal requirement to do so, such as the rules requiring trucks travelling from Gailes to the Gateway Bridge or points east to use the Logan and Gateway motorways in Brisbane.

The reason is simple: the truck is hired on a time basis, so there's no net cost to the operator in using the longer route, while tolls are expensive and without receipts thanks to electronic billing it can be hard to collect the money from customers. A truck using the route described above will accumulate around $30 in tolls, through 3 toll stations and will use perhaps 20% more fuel than the more direct route, although it will take perhaps 20-50% less time, depending on traffic. That's a double whammy for transport operators that they are loathe to pay. A medium sized firm I am familiar with spends in excess of $20,000 per month on tolls, with only about half recovered from clients.

The suggestions in regard to time-saving only apply if the cost of that time is borne by the user of the road.

Why is this article only looking at public transport as an alternative? It's been clearly shown that the most cost effective method of travel is bicycle, and with the advent of electric e-bikes it's clearly a realistic option for most people:
“Eight out of ten Australian adults still use a private motor vehicle to travel to work or full-time study, just 14% take public transport, 4% walk and a mere 2% cycle, with 30% of these trips in the cities under 3km”
http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/general/change-the-world/93269

I'm regularly cycling 15km to work and arrive in a similar time to car. Why? Because cars are continually stopping at lights, so their average speed is actually very low. I arrive healthier, happier, and wealthier than I did when I was an unfit and overweight car-bound commuter a couple of years ago.

Nick, G'day.

I suggest there are deeper issues in this subject than you have here raised.

You suggest the current allocational model is flawed. I don't disagree, but it is an entrenched model across most (if not all) our federal administrative sectors.

You cite the relationship between 'Infrastructure Australia' (the gov't agency) and 'Infrastructure Partnerships Australia' (the business sector agency) as an entrenched relationship delivering 'product' that serves their collective interest/s.

It is a no-brainer that the Australian federal Washminster system of governance has resulted in 'partnerships' between governmental administration and the (relevant) business sector. We could all cite similar examples across a variety of administrative sectors.

You suggest public transport is a preferable investment proposition to furthering sprawl by the continuous building of the road network. In a practical-theoretical sense, I agree. However, politically, the notion of public transport is a city centre issue. Australians have a long love affair with the car. Few politicians would be brave enough to advocate less for roads and more for city centre public transport.

On public transport, where it works well, urban densification is far greater. In highly dense cities, dwellers find the cost of a car parking space prohibitive. If asked, they would love to have a car. I doubt too many Australians would accept increases of urban density that would support an efficient (and frequent) public transport network. In any event, there is a stasis problem to such achievement (even if it were politically pushed).

You cite tolls as an increasing issue for the funding of infrastructure. True, but as you would know, the roots of this are not about a governmental funding issue. It is ideological. The ideology of Market Liberalism (or neoliberalism) is about privatising merit goods. As you wrote with Brendan (Gleeson), Australian politicians warmly advocate this approach.

I disagree with you that the funding for privatised roadspace delivery (PPP) is coming from the corporate community. I suggest there is another ideological situation.

Over the past decade, the federal government has come to realise the extent of the financial pool in superannuation. In some circles it is seen as an increasing burden on the play of free market forces. There is an increasing lobbying in Canberra that a model needs to be developed to 'harness' this funding pool to enhance the future economic benefit of Australians.

Whether this 'harnessing' approach will benefit Australians is a moot point. Nevertheless, infrastructure is the top 'issue' used to advance the 'use' of super fund moneys.

In a broader perspective...

Perhaps land-use planning academics might one day recognise that the Australian urban landscape is no longer a partnership between citizens and their elected representatives.

Instead, they may collectively recognise that the urban landscape is (as Molotch suggests) the platform for the 'growth machine'. And, the administration of same is more akin to (Stone's) 'Regime Theory' than other explanations.

Once land-use planning academics collectively recognise this view of the capitalist structure of current urban design, they may then serve a useful purpose in the broader public debate over future urban scenario's.

Cheers

Great Article,

I have only seen that roads leads to more cars on the roads which requires more roads which introduce more cars on the roads, ad nuasiam

Hell, play Sim City for a weekend and you will notice that more roads only removes congestion for a short period of time and in the end you need to plan enough space between zones for rail, subway and bus stations....I know a video game from the 90's probably isnt the best evidence but it is pretty intuitive that more roads is not the correct answer to congestion

Despite the US enjoying a temporary mini-boom in natural gas and oil at the moment, production of cheap, conventional oil globally started to plateau around 2005. Now increasingly, oil is coming from expensive unconventional sources like tar sands, ultra-deep water and 'tight' oil that needs fracking. A number of commentators have predicted the price of oil will have doubled by 2020. Now it may be that we'll all convert to electric cars with electricity supplied by renewables, but it takes time to change a whole fleet over. So the reality will be that people will simply not be driving their cars as much and looking for other ways to get to work. It might free up a bit of space on the roads but any government putting excessive amounts of money into highways and byways, rather than electrified public transport, will be deemed irresponsible. Decisions have to be made now so that alternatives are in place within a few short years. Business as usual is simply not an option.

The Liberal/Howard era had 11 years to fix the problem. They had no GFC to deal with and had a surplus due to seeling our assets off. The current government ALP had to deal with all the problems from the Howard destruction and then the GFC and now the Liberal states want the federal ALP to give them money but then cry about government spending money. Talk about the Liberals being hypocrites!