'Planning' As A Substitute For Action?

Thirty years ago, Liz Ampt published a paper entitled "Planning as a substitute for action". This was a critique of bicycle programs in Australia but the epithet could well be applied to public transport in Perth today.

While the STC strongly supports long-term planning for public transport, it is critical that this planning is actually implemented.

We currently have plans for two major rail projects (MAX and the Airport Link) neither of which seems likely, in the current economic climate, to be funded, as well as a number of smaller rail extensions - and the contentious Ellenbrook rail link.

Rather than calling back-of-the-envelope doodles 'plans' and using them to distract attention from other transport issues (such as Tier 3 rail line closures, the misbegotten 'congestion tax' and ministerial conflicts of interest), let's get on with enhancing the system we have (more trains and more buses).

Does anyone have any idea where the latest heavy rail line might be intended for, given Reece Waldock's reported statements that "the underground line would not compete with the MAX project, because it would go along another route and extend far further to the north" and that "the promised rail line to Ellenbrook would not compete with it either because it was further to the east and north"?

The only possible location appears to be west of Mirrabooka - or it hits Whiteman Park - and far enough west to say it doesn't compete with MAX means it has to be close to Wanneroo Road - and thus competes with existing Northern Suburbs Rail.

Still, while we're on the subject of 'flying kites', if the Airport Rail Link is to be built (and the STC is on record as questioning the justification for it - http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/lack-of-transparency-in-transport.html), why not extend it through to Morley as well as linking it into the Perth-Midland line and encourage redevelopment of the Ashfield light industrial area with a focus on a very high level of rail accessibility.

West Australian, 11th December 2014

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

Kite-Flying or Desensitising

If Colin Barnett intended the leaking of an increase in motor vehicle registration fees to be a kite-flying exercise, the response is clear and unequivocal - the kite has crashed and burned.

Interestingly, the negative response is not solely (or even largely) on the basis of 'fleecing the motorist' but reflects concerns about:
- affordability for those on low incomes, many of whom live in areas not well served by public transport
- equity issues between those who drive a lot and those who drive little
- equity between city and country
- the need for revenue to be returned to improving alternatives to the private car so that there can be a real improvement in congestion.

These are issues raised in this blog yesterday (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/flat-fee-is-not-congestion-charge.html) and in the STC letter published in the West Australian today (below right, albeit with some editorial trimming).

Unfortunately, the whole episode might be not so much kite-flying as an exercise in desensitising - hoping that, when the additional charge is imposed in the 2015-16 Budget, we will all say we knew it was coming, shrug our shoulders and move on.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

The Good Oil on Congestion Pricing

A good resource on principles and practice of congestion pricing. As the makers of the video state:

In London, which successfully implemented congestion pricing in 2003, drivers now get to their jobs faster, transit users have improved service, cyclists have better infrastructure, and pedestrians have more public space. More people have access to the central city, and when they get there, the streets are safer and more enjoyable. While the politics of implementing congestion pricing are difficult, cities looking to tame traffic and compete in the 21st century can't afford to ignore a transportation solution that addresses so many problems at once.

The video, produced by 'Streetfilms', can be downloaded from http://www.streetfilms.org/mba-congestion-pricing. 

Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

Flat Fee Is Not A Congestion Charge

There is no doubt that car use at times of peak demand and, hence, heavy congestion is underpriced. At peak times, every additional kilometre we drive adds more to the costs of other road users than it costs us directly in car running costs - but others pay for it. And then there are the environmental and social costs of air pollution, traffic noise and community severance.

So, appropriate congestion charging is a sensible component of travel demand management.

But a flat annual fee, as proposed by the WA Government, is not a congestion charge as it is not related to to the time, place or amount of car use.

People who drive little will pay the same as those who drive a lot.

People who live in the outer suburbs and rarely drive into congested areas will pay the same as those who frequently drive in the inner city at peak times.

People on low incomes will pay the same as people on high incomes, but the surcharge will be a much larger proportion of their incomes - it will be a classic regressive charge.

One hopes that country people will not be asked to pay this surcharge, but it needs to be borne in mind that cars are not necessarily used where they are registered - especially in the case of cars leased by non-metropolitan businesses.

A congestion charge, to be effective, must reflect the time and place of use. If it does not, it will justifiably be dismissed as no more than a piece of revenue-raising opportunism.

UPDATE 4th December 2014

According to the West Australian, the WA Treasurer, Mike Nahan, has ruled out a 'congestion tax' or any increase in 'household fees'.

Apparently, however, that assurance might only apply to the mid-year Budget review. Premier Colin Barnett has said that 'how to fund road and public transport' would be part of next year's budget.

Interestingly, at a seniors' function in the City of Vincent yesterday, Minister for Seniors, Tony Simpson, ruled out any reduction in seniors concessions on council rates, utility charges and public transport fares (including free public transport in the middle of the day, weekends and public holidays).

We'll wait and see what actually happens.

SECOND UPDATE 4th December 2014

Well - that didn't take long!

WA Premier Colin Barnett said a plan for a charge was being considered for next year's budget but the details would not be finalised until April or May next year.

It is not being considered for the mid-year review [later this month], it may be considered as part of next year's budget."

Mr Barnett said the cost would be "about a tank of petrol".

Barnett's (Government) car must have a very large tank.

"What we are looking at is the user pays more," Mr Barnett said.

But this isn't what a flat fee does - anyone with a car pays the same amount more, whether they use it or not.

Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

Free Public Transport for STC Forum and AGM

The STC is holding a forum on 'Transparency in Infrastructure Decision-Making on Monday 3rd November at City West Lotteries House in West Perth (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/forum-on-transparency-in-infrastructure.html)

As well as the venue being in the Free Transit Zone and very accessible by the free Green and Yellow CAT buses, the WA Government has announced that you will be able to travel free on public transport to and from the Forum, wherever you live in Perth.

We strongly encourage you to take advantage of this 'once-in-a-lifetime' opportunity if you live too far away to walk or cycle.


























Posted by Ian Ker, Deputy Convenor, STCWA

Forum on Transparency in Infrastructure Decision-Making.

Please pass this on to anyone you think might be interested - and encourage them to come along.

Transparency and Objectivity Needed in Transport Appraisal

http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/overview-project-appraisal.aspx

On Friday 5 September 2014, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon Jamie Briggs MP, released for public comment, a proposed project appraisal framework, developed by the The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, in consultation with state and territory governments.

This paper is described as the outcome of Australian, state and territory governments agreeing to consult to develop a more sophisticated and consistent framework to assess and evaluate major infrastructure projects.

Unfortunately, the consultation period has only been four weeks (closes 3rd October) and there appears to have been little real attempt to engage transport professionals, practitioners and other stakeholders - we only became aware of it, indirectly, a few days before the closing date.

The STCWA has made a submission addressing key issues in the appraisal framework (see below), but our primary concern is that all projects should be subject to objective appraisal and that there should be transparency (ie appraisals should be made public) - see http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/lack-of-transparency-in-transport.html. 

Posted by Ian Ker, Deputy Convener, STCWA

WA Bicycle Network Plan Needs More Oomph

This review of the WA Bicycle Network Plan is presented here as a contribution to better-informed decision-making in public policy.

The WA Bicycle Network Plan is a useful updating of previous bicycle network plans, but it fails to consider:

- complementary behavioural and encouragement initiatives, to maximise the additional cycling activity created by the bicycle network;

- higher population forecasts than those on which the 2012 draft Plan was based; or

- how the plan is to be effectively implemented over a reasonable period of time.

Education and encouragement, directly linked to infrastructure investment, needs to be added to the Plan. Targeted funding in these areas, especially in conjunction with infrastructure improvements, can increase cycling dramatically.

The Plan should ‘fight its own cause’ by providing evidence of the significant economic benefits of cycling – see the previous post on the STC Blog: ‘Cycle and Walking ARE Economic Activities’ (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/cycling-and-walking-are-economic.html).

Beyond the planning, there are insufficient funds in the WA State Budget to implement this Plan within 10 years. The identified funds for 2015 are about half what is needed, and the following three years are less than a fifth of those needed. There is no indication of, nor commitment to, funding beyond 2017/18.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Written and posted by Ian Ker, Deputy Convenor, STCWA

Cycling and Walking ARE Economic Activities

This piece is derived from a paper presented to the VeloCity Global Conference, Adelaide, South Australia, 27-30 May, 2014. The full paper can be read at http://www.slideshare.net/Catalystian/140528-ik-paper-v20. It is presented here as a contribution to better-informed decision-making in public policy.

Walking and cycling are too often thought of as primarily having social and environmental benefits, but the economic benefits are even greater and are sufficient in their own right to justify funding of infrastructure and supporting programs.

While they do have useful social and environmental benefits, walking and cycling programs deliver economic benefits that are greater than most people realise, with BCRs of around 3 to 5. This is typically more than most transport BCRs.

The financial benefits of walking and cycling, that is the direct dollar benefits to individuals, are also substantial. Public investment in walking and cycling has the same effect as a tax cut for those who choose to change from car driving for some of their travel.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Written and posted by Ian Ker, Deputy Convenor, STCWA

Lack of Transparency in Transport Priorities

The STC has been concerned for some time about the lack of transparency in the selection and prioritisation of transport investments - particularly when the choice is between two very costly projects (MAX light rail and the Perth Airport Link) that have entirely different contributions to make to the future of travel in Perth.

This concern has been echoed by the Productivity Commission in its report on Public Infrastructure that was released last month. The Commission called for "subjecting all public infrastructure investment proposals above $50 million to rigorous cost-benefit analyses that are publicly released … prior to projects being announced". 

The West Australian, 23rd August 2014. Click to enlarge

We'd suggest that the threshold trigger should be much lower than this, although the detail of the assessment could vary, but this recommendation clearly catches MAX and the Airport Rail Link - as well as many other potential rail projects, as Gareth Parker also pointed out.

The West Australian, 23rd August 2014. Click to enlarge

Even without rigorous analysis, the widely differing relativities between cost and passengers for these projects requires investigation before committing to any of them. It is not good enough for Transport Minister Dean Nalder to say, with respect to benefit-cost studies, that "some had not been done, while others had been done but would not be released". It's public money being spent (or not spent) here, and we have a right to reassurance that it is being spent wisely.

Mr Nalder is wrong when he says that "public transport projects typically struggled to exceed BCRs of 1". The Government's own public transport plan (Public Transport for Perth in 2031) was assessed as having an overall BCR of between 1.8:1 and 2.2:1 (reported on page 34 of that plan). The Airport Rail Link, on Mr Nalder's own figures (BCR of 1.5:1) performs less well than most of the rest of the public transport plan, which is presumably why it was put into Stage 2 projects not into Stage 1.

This raises yet another question raised on Saturday - why has the Government chosen different priorities from those identified in it's own plan? And it isn't good enough for Mr Nalder to say that it reflects higher population growth forecasts since the Plan was developed - his BCR of 1.5:1 for the Airport Rail Link presumably includes that faster growth and such growth would also increase the returns from other public transport investments.

The West Australian, 23rd August 2014. Click to enlarge

No one disputes that we need to invest more in public transport, but this is not an encouraging assessment of the way in which decisions are made on how our taxpayer dollars are being spent. 

Posted by Ian Ker, Deputy Convenor, STCWA