Skip to main content

Monetising time savings makes toll roads financially stack up, says research

Putting a financial value on the savings from traffic congestion, noise and air pollution as a result of toll roads and tunnels will make large infrastructure projects more cost effective, according to a new study by Australia’s Queensland University of Technology (QUT). Sae Chi, from the university’s Science and Engineering Faculty, has compared the financial and economic cost of public and privately operated toll roads and tunnels, and found the net impacts to the community should be taken into account
September 29, 2017 Read time: 2 mins
Putting a financial value on the savings from traffic congestion, noise and air pollution as a result of toll roads and tunnels will make large infrastructure projects more cost effective, according to a new study by Australia’s Queensland University of Technology (QUT).


Sae Chi, from the university’s Science and Engineering Faculty, has compared the financial and economic cost of public and privately operated toll roads and tunnels, and found the net impacts to the community should be taken into account in decision-making about transport infrastructure investment.

The research has been published in the Journal of Transportation Engineering titled Measuring impacts and risks to the public of a privately operated toll road project by considering perspectives in cost-benefit analysis.

The report claims that the financial bottom line should not be the only consideration when determining whether or not to invest in toll roads and tunnels.

Governments often partner with the private sector to share the costs and risks of building and operating toll road and tunnel projects. However, the report says that while private operators were looking for a bottom line return on investment, governments needed to consider benefits in addition to toll charges and traffic flows that can result in profits. Even when partnering with the private sector, it is important that governments consider the public benefits and monetise savings such as travel time, reduced costs to drivers and the positive outcomes for the environment. Chi believes that when governments put a financial cost on these factors the cost-benefit analysis sways much more heavily in favour of supporting infrastructure investment.

Chi said current cost-benefit analysis for road and tunnel projects was limited in Australia, and in most cases focused on the financials and not the public benefits. “But governments are responsible for public decision making for the good of their constituents and this includes ensuring that public funds are invested wisely and that regulation of private sector activity ensures a net benefit to society,” she said.

Chi believes the study findings would help support increased infrastructure investment across the nation, especially in high-growth population areas.

Related Content

  • January 16, 2024
    "AI can help fast-track Net Zero and Vision Zero," says VivaCity
    Artificial intelligence isn't just about self-driving cars - and ‘smart’ doesn't always have to be shiny, new and innovative. Mark Nicholson, CEO at VivaCity, offers a few predictions for 2024...
  • May 19, 2020
    Smart cities - better world, says A-to-Be
    Smart city adoption in the US has been sluggish, thinks Jason Wall of A-to-Be USA. But there is still time to learn lessons from the European experience...
  • January 26, 2012
    Debating road user charging systems
    Are pre-launch trials of charging systems the way to improve public acceptance? Or is the real key a more robust political attitude? Here, leading system suppliers discuss the issue. The use of distance-based Road User Charging (RUC) is now well established, at least for heavy goods vehicles on strategic roads. However demand management for all vehicles, whether a distance-based charge or some form of cordon scheme, has yet to make significant progress. This is in spite of the logic and equity of RUC being
  • September 13, 2013
    High Speed 2 should be part of integrated transport policy
    The UK’s Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) is calling for the High Speed 2 (HS2) proposals to be reassessed to become part of an integrated transport programme of metro, rail, bus and road projects to revitalise the cities of the Midlands and North. The call comes as the Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin reasserted the case for the new rail line. Prof Phil Blythe, chair of the IET Transport Policy Panel, said: “We are supportive in principle of high speed rail, but we believe that