Submissions questioned: the $18.6B cost of the project, tolls (up to $10 each way, or more); the business case and the need for the project; the impact on air quality, health and noise; property acquisitions; and the impact on local roads and parks. Almost 50 per cent of submissions called for public transport, instead of WestConnex.
The RMS has acknowledged these concerns but dismissed them as not significant, acceptable, or as something that can be addressed later. There are, however, two important admissions made, even if those admissions are not followed to their logical conclusion.
The RMS response acknowledges that the benefits of the New M5 depend on the delivery of the M4-M5 link, which if built, will connect St Peters to the M4. Without the M4-M5 link, the response admits, there would be “unacceptable deterioration in road network performance”.
The Response to Submissions does not follow this to its logical conclusion: because the benefits for the New M5 depend on the delivery of the M4-M5, the two can only properly be considered together. Because neither makes sense on its own, it does not make sense to consider them separately, but the Response to Submissions does not acknowledge this.
Many respondents expressed concern that putting tolls on the M5 would increase congestion on nearby roads, including Stoney Creek Road. The Response rejects this concern, because “these arterial roads are already at capacity”. But elsewhere the Response claims that adding extra roads will reduce congestion. It assumes that if the existing traffic were spread over more lanes and more roads, congestion would reduce. However, this is out-of-date thinking. Modern research has discovered that if congestion reduces, people drive further, and they drive more. Adding road capacity increases the distance people drive, but it does not reduce congestion.
As well as these admissions, the RMS response is notable for two fatal flaws in its arguments in favour of the project: the benefits claimed for the project can be realised separately to the project, and benefits are not revenue.
Benefits claimed for the project include local road widenings and improvements (eg. extra bridges over the Alexandria Canal), bike paths, an improvement in bus travel times (by adding bus lanes) and a reduction in congestion on the M5 (by adding a toll). All of these things could be done, if desired, without building the New M5.
The RMS response to financial concerns about the project was to quote the business case, which predicts $24.3B of benefits – mostly the value of travel time saved. The response did not address concerns that the estimated travel time saved was overestimated, nor that the value of each hour saved may be overestimated. More importantly, benefits are not revenue, and it is rarely simple to convert benefits to revenue.
By way of an example, suppose that saving six minutes is worth $5.36 to one commuter, and $2.13 to another commuter. This would represent $7.49 in benefits. But revenue is produced only when a toll is applied. If the toll is set at $2.13, then the second commuter won’t use the New M5. The theoretical $7.49 of benefits would produce only $2.13 in revenue. This problem is sometimes called the “value capture problem” – even though a project creates benefits, these do not necessarily generate revenue to pay for the project.
The RMS Response to Submissions is now being evaluated by the Department of Planning.
