URBAN ROAD PLANNING IN THEORY AND PRACTICE* By Patrick Troy and Max Neutze ‘The effect of transport facilities on land use is now widely recognised, and many transport planners acknowledge that the two are interdependent, But theimplications for transport planning are not often fully appreciated. In this paper we look closely at a number of investment criteria used in urban road planning to see to what extent they treat all land uses, including transport routes, as a variable, It will be argued that even the most sophisticated criteria do not score highly. The planning-invest- ment criteria actually used are often concerned only to optimise small parts of the system, and can easily lead the whole system further away from its objectives. Part I contains a brief discussion of objectives. In Part II we discuss planning- investment criteria of increasing sophistication. In Part IIT planning procedures in New South Wales are considered to see how they fit into the pattern devised in the first section. Some institutional factors, such as the division of authority, are also introduced. I. OBJECTIVES As we see it the main objective of urban road planning is the best use of scarce resources to achieve urban areas which are efficient places for the production of goods and services and which bring the maximum satisfaction to their residents. The case for road planning rarely needs to be spelled out: it cannot sensibly be left to the free market. The question is not whether we plan roads or not, but rather how they are planned, and how far into the future. One area of debate is whether road planning should aim at the efficient provision of roads for road transport, at an efficient urban transport system as a whole, or at an even wider objective — an efficient and attractive urban arca. We shall argue that, if it is accepted that the location of roads influences the shape and form of urban development, any objective narrower than “a better urban area” will mean that a powerful means of achieving urban planning objectives is not being fully used. Road investment can be primarily devoted to alleviating problems as they arise in particular parts of the system, or it can be devoted more to meeting and shaping future demands. “Better roads now” is probably a more popular policy with most of ‘We are grateful for the comments of Professor Kolsen of Queensland University and of our colleague, Peter Harrison, on an earlier draft of this paper. 139May 1969 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS AND POLICY the electorate, and a road authority may find itself trying to inject as much “planning for the future” as political pressures permit. Since it is impossible to mect all demands for funds, it is a question of how much weight each will be given in making invest ment decisions. A policy of alleviating the worst problems is, at least in principle, relatively simple. In Part II we assume that the optimal weighting of present and future benefits has been found, This part focuses attention on how to provide for the future, and argues that a policy of meeting existing needs will have a particular effect on land use. In striking the balance between meeting current demands and providing for the future, itis important that these effects are given a good deal of weight. In Part III ‘we comment on the weight which appears to be given to future conditions in road planning in New South Wales. I. ALTERNATIVE PLANNING METHODS Meeting the Existing Demand The users of the “existing demand” criterion hold that whenever the volume of traffic rises above some percentage of capacity of the road, say 80 per cent, or the delays at an intersection exceed so many minutes at peak hours, there is a prima facie case for an increase in its capacity. Similarly, whenever accidents at a particular intersection exceed a given frequency the intersection should be controlled, for example, by traffic lights. Tt is usually most efficient to increase road capacity by large lumps, so that a policy of mecting the demand does not result in all urban roads being precisely matched to the volume of traffic. But it is a good deal cheaper to achieve the desired standards of capacity in areas where land, and hence road construction, are cheap. If there are a number of sections of road equally congested, the funds are likely to be used where they will go furthest, ie, where road construction is cheapest. Road planners also lear from experience that land prices rise fairly continuously over time, so that, if they wait until they are almost ready to build a road before they purchase the land they need, its price will be higher than if they are able to buy it ‘earlier. Land prices rise most rapidly near road improvements, so they often find it prudent to buy enough land to be able to widen the road at a later date if this should be desirable. In any event negotiations usually have to be started well in advance because of the time it takes (even when compulsory purchase procedures are used) to deal with the large number of owners who are usually involved. Finally, the actual design and construction period is seldom less than two years. If the road authority attempts to ensure that its own construction capacity is used fully most of the time, or to provide fairly continuous jobs for contractors, it will be necessary to plan construction several years in advance. ‘The overall result is that even a road planning policy which aims to meet existing demands involves a great deal of forward planning if management is to be prudent and efficient. This is especially true for building new roads. Transportation Studies ‘A policy of meeting existing demands generally overlooks the effects of a change in one part of a network on the demands on that and other parts of the network. 140URBAN ROAD PLANNING Patrick Troy and Max Neutze Also, little account is generally taken of future demand on the network. We have already mentioned that, for various reasons, it is necessary to plan a construction programme fairly well in advance, and it is not possible to increase the capacity of roads by small amounts at frequent intervals. Clearly the construction programme would be more efficient if both the network effects and future demand could be taken into account. ‘Transportation study techniques have been developed to assist in the solution of these problems. The trips made between present land uses are assigned to the main links in the existing transport network. Trip assignments are adjusted until the traffic volume on each link approximates the existing conditions. The trips generated in the future between different land uses are forecast. By means of the adjusted assign- ment procedure the forecast trips are assigned to proposed transport networks. ‘A number of alternative transport networks with varying service levels can be tested, and the costs compared. Although there are many weaknesses,! the strong points of the transportation study are that it treats the network as a whole and that it systematically estimates future levels of demand. Benefit Cost Analysis ‘A policy of accommodating the needs or the demands of the transport users usually implies that congestion should be kept down to a certain level, which may be judged by average speed, percentage of capacity operation or the accident rate at an intersection. The same kinds of criteria are used to evaluate the short and Jong run investment plans which are the output of a transportation study. The great weaknesses of these criteria are: (a) They ignore the differences in cost of road space in different parts of the metropolitan area (though in practice cost considerations are always taken into account in some fashion) ; and (b) They do not take account of differences in the values various road users may place on saving of time or avoidance of accidents. Benefit cost analysis tries to overcome these weaknesses by explicitly estimating the benefits from particular improvements to individual roads and intersections, and comparing these benefits with their costs. Not only are the costs of particular improvements taken specifically into account, but altemative ways of improving the level of service can be compared. Benefit cost analysis, at least in principle, allows objective comparisons between alternative ways of spending the funds available for investment, even though the comparisons may be between roads and intersections serving very different functions and operating at very different levels of service. Widening existing roads can be compared with freeway construction and grade- separated interchanges. Public transport investment can be compared with roads, and transport with other claims on public funds, Network Benefit Cost Analysis ‘One of the serious shortcomings of benefit cost analysis in road planning has been that it has so far only considered improvements to particular parts of the network. See, for example, S. P. C. Plowden, “Transportation Studies Examined”. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 1, pp. 5-27, 1967. 141