Why widening and building more roads is not the answer

The usual ‘solution’ to a congested road network is to widen roads or build more freeways. However, it has been proven that building more road space does not relieve congestion in the long term. It just encourages longer or extra trips, with demand for even more roads, or induced demand. Building lots of roads makes cities bland and alienating, and difficult to walk, bike or take PT in, unfair to people who can’t or don’t drive. Also, the amount of roads needed to satisfy every possible travel need is impractical, consuming large amounts of land, and, unbelievably expensive

On the other hand investment in public transport or active transport (walking and biking) are cheaper and carry more passengers than road investments. They also take up less land and are future-proof; they not only can cater for population growth but will stay useful with global warming and peak oil.

In conclusion, building lots of roads will not solve congestion problems, which reminds me of a good quote by Orlando, Florida traffic engineer Walter Kulash, “Widening roads to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity”. If drivers want more roads then at the very least they should pay for them.

The case for public transport if global warming isn’t true

While public transport is a good way to fight global warming, this is by no means the only reason to use it. Firstly, even if global warming isn’t a problem, the pollution causing it certainly is. PT uses less fuel than cars, so it also deals with peak oil.

Public transport can also move more people than cars, so they can reduce congestion and parking problems. By extension of their efficiency, PT takes up less space and requires less subsidy/is more profitable than cars, while still being cheaper, providing mobility to those who can’t or don’t drive. Many people just find it more convenient and less stressful than driving. (ABS Public Transport Use for Work and Study)

In conclusion, to say that global warming isn’t true is no reason to drive everywhere and ignore public transport.

Why free public transport isn't the answer

An idea often suggested in light of rising fares and inadequate public transport is to make it free. This is thought to increase public transport usage and make it better, fighting problems such as global warming.

While free public transport will certainly increase public transport, this will only make it more crowded, and with no revenue from it, public transport will become very expensive for the government. It is also claimed that fare collection costs a large percentage of fare revenue, so by doing away with fares we wouldn’t lose much money. However as I said before, free public transport means that more people will use it increasing costs.

Also, since free travel is not valued, some of these trips may be unnecessary and not taking cars off the road. Night services may become rolling homeless shelters, discouraging use by drivers.

In the end, the only reason why public transport needs to be free to compete with cars is because cars are heavily subsidised and our cities are optimised for them. By raising the cost of travel by car to cost-recovery, public transport-friendly suburbs will develop, allowing high-quality public transport that breaks even or even makes a profit.
However, free public transport in selected areas may be useful, as in Perth with our Free Transit Zone and CAT buses. In following with the second paragraph, the CAT buses are very useful but they can also get quite crowded, and are run from City of Perth's parking money.