Second Opinion Brussels Ring
12.48
2012
TML compared scenarios for widening the northern ring road around Brussels (R0) and introducing road pricing. The methodology involved analysing different scenarios without additional measures, using data from the environmental impact report and assumptions on environmental, health, and investment cost impacts to evaluate the impact of each scenario.
The Flemish government worked out an environmental impact report (EIR) and a social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA) for the widening of the northern Ring Road around Brussels (R0).
Remarkably, neither the EIR nor the SCBA analysed the impact of just an infrastructure adjustment on the R0. The comparison always assumed that flanking policies were being implemented: the RER network was built, road pricing for passenger and freight transport was in place, De Lijn's wish network was implemented, and bicycle traffic increased. However, given the timing and cost of these measures, the question is whether all these measures will indeed be in place when work starts on widening the R0.
At the request of Groen, we therefore compared in this study a reference scenario without additional measures with a scenario with only road pricing (scenario A) and a scenario with only infrastructure measures (scenario B).
Scenario B was an infrastructure project on the R0 with the separation of through (three lanes) and local traffic (one or two lanes) on the R0 by means of parallel roads. Interestingly, the transport projections in the EIR study show that the infrastructure project does not really increase traffic flow significantly. The biggest gains in terms of traffic flow are achieved by introducing road pricing for both freight and passenger transport.
In this study, we focused on the potential time gains as well as the environmental and health effects of road traffic. We compared these effects with the possible investment cost of the different scenarios. It was therefore not a full social cost-benefit analysis. To calculate the effects, we relied on data from the EIR. For data that were not available, own assumptions were made. This was the case, among others, for the possible effects on public transport (which could not be calculated) and the possible time gain of vehicles (which was estimated).
In scenario A (road pricing), transport volumes and congestion fall everywhere. In scenario B (widening R0), transport volumes increase. There are fewer traffic jams on the R0 thanks to the widening. On the oncoming motorways, however, there are more traffic jams. Overall, the speed gain in scenario B is much lower than in scenario A.
To calculate the environmental and health impact, we multiplied the difference in vehicle kilometres by the emission factors (in kg/vehicle-km) for the different pollutants. A monetary valuation was then calculated for the impacts the pollutants have on people and nature. Health played the most important role here. In scenario A, total transport volumes decrease and there are therefore benefits for society. In scenario B, the increase in transport volumes in turn leads to costs.
When we combined the benefits of accessibility with the effect on the environment, we got an indication of what the possible investment costs for the different scenarios would be to break even for society. This is shown in the table. For scenario A, road pricing costs may reach €9.8 billion. For scenario B, investments should cost a maximum of 645 million euros, which is less than what is currently estimated as the cost of widening the ring road (1 billion euros).
Because the expected impact of widening the R0 on traffic flow is uncertain, a sensitivity analysis was also done where we assume the impact to be smaller. When road traffic speeds increase less than expected, the investment costs in new infrastructure that can be socially justified are also lower: €0.5 billion.
The Flemish government worked out an environmental impact report (EIR) and a social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA) for the widening of the northern Ring Road around Brussels (R0).
Remarkably, neither the EIR nor the SCBA analysed the impact of just an infrastructure adjustment on the R0. The comparison always assumed that flanking policies were being implemented: the RER network was built, road pricing for passenger and freight transport was in place, De Lijn's wish network was implemented, and bicycle traffic increased. However, given the timing and cost of these measures, the question is whether all these measures will indeed be in place when work starts on widening the R0.
At the request of Groen, we therefore compared in this study a reference scenario without additional measures with a scenario with only road pricing (scenario A) and a scenario with only infrastructure measures (scenario B).
Scenario B was an infrastructure project on the R0 with the separation of through (three lanes) and local traffic (one or two lanes) on the R0 by means of parallel roads. Interestingly, the transport projections in the EIR study show that the infrastructure project does not really increase traffic flow significantly. The biggest gains in terms of traffic flow are achieved by introducing road pricing for both freight and passenger transport.
In this study, we focused on the potential time gains as well as the environmental and health effects of road traffic. We compared these effects with the possible investment cost of the different scenarios. It was therefore not a full social cost-benefit analysis. To calculate the effects, we relied on data from the EIR. For data that were not available, own assumptions were made. This was the case, among others, for the possible effects on public transport (which could not be calculated) and the possible time gain of vehicles (which was estimated).
In scenario A (road pricing), transport volumes and congestion fall everywhere. In scenario B (widening R0), transport volumes increase. There are fewer traffic jams on the R0 thanks to the widening. On the oncoming motorways, however, there are more traffic jams. Overall, the speed gain in scenario B is much lower than in scenario A.
To calculate the environmental and health impact, we multiplied the difference in vehicle kilometres by the emission factors (in kg/vehicle-km) for the different pollutants. A monetary valuation was then calculated for the impacts the pollutants have on people and nature. Health played the most important role here. In scenario A, total transport volumes decrease and there are therefore benefits for society. In scenario B, the increase in transport volumes in turn leads to costs.
When we combined the benefits of accessibility with the effect on the environment, we got an indication of what the possible investment costs for the different scenarios would be to break even for society. This is shown in the table. For scenario A, road pricing costs may reach €9.8 billion. For scenario B, investments should cost a maximum of 645 million euros, which is less than what is currently estimated as the cost of widening the ring road (1 billion euros).
Because the expected impact of widening the R0 on traffic flow is uncertain, a sensitivity analysis was also done where we assume the impact to be smaller. When road traffic speeds increase less than expected, the investment costs in new infrastructure that can be socially justified are also lower: €0.5 billion.
