Wonderfully-Horrifying (and Depressing) Trifecta

What a wonderfully-horrifying (and depressing) trifecta of reports juxtaposed in today's West Australian, clearly demonstrating the lack of consistent principle and planning in today's politics at both state and federal levels.

First, there is the report that all transport planning that has been in progress for the past six years under this government is to be dumped ('Key transport plans axed') - almost certainly because the planners have not been coming up with the answers the Premier wants. The replacement plans, of course, won't be finished before the next election, when everything will change yet again.

One of Australia's most respected transport professionals, over 30 years ago, described this state of affairs as 'Planning as a substitute for action'. Some things never change.

Then we have the medical profession calling for more cycleways ('Build more cycleways to stay healthy'), to encourage people to get on bikes and improve their health through exercise. Ironically, this is one area where the WA Government has produced a plan - but unfortunately its funding of it is so woefully inadequate that it will take decades to implement.

And then there is the Federal ALP which, rightly in our view, has agreed to support the Government's fuel excise indexation rather than see the revenue raised so far go back to the oil companies ('Fuel price up twice a year') - but, wrongly in our view, has effectively agreed to all of it being spent on roads rather than on a multi-modal approach to addressing congestion in our cities. 

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

Federal ALP Agrees With Abbott: Roads, Roads and More Roads

The Federal ALP has changed its position to support fuel excise indexation but only on the condition that $1.1 billion of the $3 billion over four years is spent on rural roads.  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-23/labor-bows-to-fuel-excise-increase/6566240

The ALP says nothing about the remaining $1.9 billion, which presumably, given Tony Abbott's stated view that the Federal Government should 'stick to its knitting'( which he sees as roads, roads and more roads), will be spent on urban roads. 

Rural roads, where there are no alternatives to road transport, might well be a sensible use of funds, but in urban areas there should at least be the option of spending on alternatives to roads. Even in rural areas, funds could usefully be dedicated to retaining or upgrading rail access (eg for grain in WA).

The STCWA has previously supported fuel excise indexation, but on the condition that the additional revenues be hypothecated to 'walking, cycling and public transport as well as for roads in general' (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/stc-support-for-fuel-excise-indexation.html). We continue to hold that view.

No one, especially Tony Abbott who can ill-afford another billion-dollar budget hole, wants the money from the 2014 fuel excise increase to go back to the oil companies, but Labor has missed a huge opportunity to help safeguard a sustainable future and to differentiate itself from the Government here.

At the same time, Federal MP for Perth, Alannah MacTiernan is sending out a flier rightly criticising the Barnett Government for reneging on its promise to build the MAX light rail and committing to build a non-promise in the Perth Freight Link.

There seems to be an obvious disconnect here.

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

Where's the Strategy on Freight and Port Sale?

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/27918528/budget-delivers-record-deficit

The sale or long-term lease of Fremantle Port, announced in today's WA State Budget, casts a disturbing new light on what was already unseemly haste to get the Perth Freight Link underway. 

It was reported in February that detailed planning for much of the project, including the most difficult section from Stock Road to Fremantle Port, had not yet been done. Yet the Government is already calling for tenders on what, in the absence of such planning, must be a high-risk project for tenderers.

Now we can see why there is such haste - in addition, of course, to the Government's wanting to preclude the possibility of a new incoming government in March 2017 being able to cancel contracts as the Victorian Labor Government did for the East-West Link in Melbourne. The East-West Link was also a major road project with dubious justification and contracts entered into hastily just before an election.

If the Port is to be sold or leased, Perth Freight Link is effectively either an attempt to boost the price or a direct subsidy to the new port owners. 

In the absence of a business case for the Perth Freight Link, we don’t know for sure that boosting the price will cost more than it achieves – an indirect subsidy to the new owners – but it is highly likely. Tenderers for the Perth Freight Link project will, in any case, add a premium for the high risk of the project.

Similarly, tenderers for the Port will discount the price they are willing to pay for the risks associated with the Perth Freight Link - and it is entirely possible that a potential purchaser might prefer to place more emphasis on rail transport of containers from the Port, effectively diluting any value the Perth Freight Link would have.

Whatever the merits of selling or leasing the Port of Fremantle, the conjunction with the haste to get the Perth Freight Link project underway strongly suggests a lack of coherent strategy for freight not only at the Port but more generally. The continual delays in releasing the 'Moving Freight' strategy appear to be a result of the Government's lack of consistency and the resulting 'need' to avoid the embarrassment of a plan that its own actions undermine - as happened with the Public Transport Plan and Government's subsequent abandonment of MAX light rail (Stage 1 priority in the plan) in favour of an Airport rail link (stage 2 priority).

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

The Human Scale: Jan Gehl-Inspired Documentary

For those who might have missed the Jan Gehl inspired film, The Human Scale, first time around (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/for-those-interested-in-cities-for.html), it is back on iView (http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/human-scale/ZX9994A001S00) until 24th May.

Deckchairs. Titanic. Where's the Strategic Direction for Transport?

Hot on the heels of the breathless announcement of $40 million to 'improve' congestion hotspots, we have the announcement of $35 million to be spent on four major cycle infrastructure projects.

Sounds good - and the STC certainly supports sensible initiatives to reduce congestion and to fund improved cycle infrastructure. As so often is the case, however, the devil is in the detail.

West Australian 8th May 2015

West Australian 9th May 2015

The problem with a 'hotspot' approach to road traffic congestion is that it runs the risk of both inducing more traffic and shifting the congestion to another place along the road. A classic example of this is the proposal to add capacity to the turning movements between East Parade and the Graham Farmer Freeway, which will put even more pressure on the intersection of Guildford Road, East Parade and Whatley Crescent. And by inducing more traffic down East Parade, it will make it even more difficult for the people who live in the riverside area of Banks Precinct to get to the East Perth train station, which is their main public transport access point.

What is needed is a coherent overall approach to congestion, including demand management and enhancements to non-car travel options, instead of a knee-jerk roll-out of short-term responses.

So what, then, is wrong with the announcement of $35 million for four major cycle infrastructure projects? In part, it is precisely the same point - none of these four projects is among the priority projects identified in the Government's own WA Bicycle Network Plan. Even though the government has a coherent plan for bicycle infrastructure, it has ignored it when it comes to funding.

In fact, at least three of those projects (Mitchell Freeway extension; Reid Highway; Gateway WA) would, in the past, have been funded by Main Roads as an integral part of the road project, under its commitment to ensure that cyclists are provided for safely as part of its road projects. The funding would have been part of the 'business as usual' road budget not trumpeted as something additional.

Ignoring the Network Plan is not the way to get more people on bikes. Just a few days previously, the UK Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord) published a piece on how Amsterdam became the cycling capital of the world (Danes in Copenhagen might want to dispute that) - the key to this was genuine cycle networks. Initially, "bicycle paths were bright red and very visible … cyclists would change their route to use the paths. It certainly helped to keep people on their bikes, but in the end it turned out that one single bicycle route did not lead to an overall increase in cycling. [Then] the City of Delft constructed a whole network of cycle paths and it turned out that this did encourage more people to get on their bikes. One by one, other cities followed suit."

The best 'bang for the buck' for cycling in Perth will come from filling in the gaps in the existing incomplete network, so that we get full value from the investments already made - not from crowing about facilities that would be provided as a matter of course in road construction projects.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

Your Transport Can Cost Less - For You And For All Of Us

The cost of transport to households and the community is an important issue. 

Ways of reducing the cost were partly addressed in the recent report by the Australasian Railway Association on the 'Costs of Commuting' and the importance of the issue has been reinforced by the front page piece on the report 'City Limits' (http://grattan.edu.au/report/city-limits-why-australias-cities-are-broken-and-how-we-can-fix-them) in the West Australian of 2nd March 2015. 

West Australian, 2nd March, 2015. Click to enlarge

The STC piece below draws attention to the benefits to individuals and the community that are achievable through less-costly and less-time-consuming changes in individual behaviour and, importantly, in the taxation and remuneration systems, where governments can provide a lead without incurring substantial costs.

By no means all of the opportunities lie in the area of transport itself. Reform of Fringe Benefits Tax and providing greater flexibility in remuneration systems and salary-packaging can achieve substantial benefits with state and federal governments taking the lead - at little or no net cost.

Approved: STC Committee Meeting, 17th February, 2015

Contact: Ian Ker at catalystian@netscape.net 

Sustainable Transport Coalition of WA: www.stcwa.org.au

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA.

Transport Planning for Perth: Where Are The People, Their Perceptions And Their Priorities?

The STC recently published its outline of transport mode priorities, as a guide to more effective transport planning (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/it-isnt-easy-to-clearly-define.html).

This led to further consideration of the transport planning process within such a prioritisation of modes would be used. We concluded that substantial improvements to the way transport planning is done in Perth are both necessary and possible, not only to use the modal prioritisation effectively but to be effective in achieving a sustainable transport future for Perth.

Approved: STC Committee Meeting, 17th February, 2015

Contact: Ian Ker at catalystian@netscape.net 

Sustainable Transport Coalition of WA: www.stcwa.org.au

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA.

Senate Report Favours Public Transport

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Reference Committee

Role of Public Transport in Delivering Productivity Outcomes (report downloadable at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Public_transport/Report)

The Australian Senate’s Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Reference Committee (subsequently referred to as “the Committee”) published a report of its enquiry into the Role of Public Transport in Delivering Productivity Outcomes in December 2014.

The committee made the following recommendations:

1.  Public transport infrastructure should be considered as nationally-significant infrastructure, alongside private transport infrastructure such as road construction.

2.  Wider economic costs and benefits, including social and economic connectivity, environmental factors, active lifestyle benefits, safety factors and avoided costs and benefits be factored into transport project analysis.

3.  Given the productivity cost of capital city congestion, all levels of government interested in increasing national productivity consider backing solutions to congestion, including public transport.

4.  When addressing congestion and other transport problems, a range of reasonable solutions be examined, including the publication of cost-benefit analysis, before decisions on funding are made by government.

5.  Smaller cost projects, especially so-called smart projects involving the more efficient use of existing infrastructure, or the more effective integration of routes and modes, be prioritised according to the positive benefits they produce.

6.  The Australian Government fund transport – including road and rail projects – on a mode-neutral basis, based on assessed merit.

7.  The Australian Government take a leadership role on urban policy, working with the states and territories, given the strong link between transport and urban planning.

STCWA made a public submission to the enquiry and provided evidence at a hearing in Perth.  STCWA applauds the Committee for being engaged with this timely issue and is pleased to note that a number of recommendations we provided to the enquiry are reflected in the Committee’s recommendations.

The STCWA’s submission is consistent with the Committee’s recommendations that:

·       - Public transport be considered nationally significant infrastructure;

·       - Wider Economic Benefits (WEB’s) be included in project appraisals;

·       - Smaller cost projects being prioritised according to the benefits produced.

The Committee’s recommendation the Australian Government take a leadership role on urban policy, given the strong link between transport and urban planning is consistent with the spirit of our recommendation that simply providing more transit in the absence of sound urban design practices conducive to the creation of walkable cities will be futile. In the words of our submission: The issue is locality design that supports walking and cycling, that will also support public transport that leads to well-functioning cities.  

The recommendation to publish cost-benefit analysis prior to funding decisions being made is strongly endorsed by the STCWA and is entirely consistent with our submission to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development on a proposed Project Appraisal Framework, to be developed by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, in consultation with state and territory governments.

Notwithstanding a number of sound recommendations made by the committee, the STCWA is disappointed the Committee has failed to recommend support for the application of land value capture techniques to help fund the cost of future transit.   Evidence provided to the Committee by a number of credible experts underscored the viability of funding public transport infrastructure from increases in land value linked to the provision of transit.  The key is to hypothecate the extra revenue generated by rates and taxes from the additional increase in property prices generated by the provision of public transport to fund the capital and/or operating cost of mass transit. Government may also wish to enter into Public Private Partnerships with the private sector that takes expenses off the Government’s books and couples transit infrastructure provision with development of new Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Developments (POD/TODs).

The STCWA would also have liked to see the Committee recommend the Commonwealth Government develop new national guidelines for the consistent application of road user charges. Congestion charging and parking levies can help spread the peak, encourage mode shift to space-efficient mass transit systems, and provide funding streams to meet capital and operating costs of public transport. In particular, STCWA argues State Governments should plan location and time specific road user charges as a means of congestion management as part of a whole of city strategy. However, STCWA cautions against using tolls to recover the cost of individual road projects as they distort the potential for a whole of city approach.  Moreover, recent investments in toll roads have been loss-making due to forecasting errors informed by flawed traffic models over estimating projected traffic flows.

In conclusion, the STCWA is pleased to note the Australian Senate has become engaged with the issues pertaining to urban public transport and recognise transit’s key role in fostering productivity growth and enhancing quality of life.   STCWA is concerned the Federal Government refuses to fund urban public transport in light of the fact the Commonwealth collects 80% of the country’s tax revenue.  Australia is one of the world’s most highly urbanised societies and is experiencing rapid population growth.  In order to compete successfully in a highly globalised world, the country will have to bolster its productivity growth. Public transport (coupled with sound local initiatives to enhance walkability through improved neighbourhood design) can play a key enabling role in this transition. Better urban design coupled with enhanced provision of mass transit infrastructure will also help improve Australia’s resilience to future oil supply shocks and fuel price rises associated with the peaking of conventional global oil supplies. A less car dependent urban future will also help play a role in mitigating climate change by reducing the transport’s sector’s production of carbon pollution.  

Written by Stephen Kovacs, Committee Member. Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

Parking - And The Rest

Weekend West Australian, 17th January 2015

Fremantle Mayor, Brad Pettitt, provides a sobering insight into one aspect of the consequences of Perth's continuing over-dependence on the private car.

Of course, some of the land consumption for parking can be reduced by using decked or multi-storey parking structures - but this actually increases the financial cost, as such structures cost twice as much per bay.

But parking is only one aspect of the land and development effects of high levels of car use. Unless we change the ways in which we use cars, there will be pressure for more road capacity and increasing congestion on existing roads. Congestion has severe adverse effects on business and commerce, not just on people travelling around Perth.

To avoid this scenario, we need to provide effective alternatives to the private car and to assist and encourage people to use them. Inevitably this requires investment, but investment that has been shown time and time again to be well-justified by the benefits to individuals and the community.

In this context, the STC asks:
- Why does the WA Government not commit to funding the MAX light rail and prefers, instead, in defiance of its own Public Transport Plan, to build an expensive underground Airport Rail Link that will carry many fewer passengers and serve a much more limited area (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/lack-of-transparency-in-transport.html)?
- Why is the funding for the Government's own WA Bicycle Network Plan only one-fifth of the amount required to provide a complete and coherent network within 10 years (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/wa-bicycle-network-plan-needs-more-oomph.html)?
- Why does TravelSmart struggle to get more than token funding for a program that is a WA-developed world leader with benefits demonstrated to be many times the costs?
- Why does the WA Government keep producing transport plans that it either ignores or has no intention of funding (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/planning-as-substitute-for-action.html)?

Overall, we continue to question the basis on which transport decisions are made in Perth (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/lack-of-transparency-in-transport.html and http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/transparency-and-objectivity-needed-in.html). A parliamentary inquiry into the the planning, prioritisation and implementation of transport infrastructure and services would be a good way of airing these issues outside the closed-shop of bureaucrats and Ministers.

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA.

Where Should Transport Priorities Lie?

It isn't easy to clearly define priorities for sustainable transport given the diversity of circumstances in which transport is a vital component of economic, social and environmental well-being. Transport is ubiquitous, essential and, at the same time, diverse.

The City of York, in England, adopted a simple hierarchy that has served it well since 1988. This still underpins the City's transport planning in the second decade of the 21st Century.

The Sustainable Transport Coalition has been looking at how similar priorities might be established to support transport planning and development in Perth. The document below was adopted by the STC on 18th November 2014 and is presented as a contribution to developing effective sustainable transport.

We welcome comments and suggestions on these priorities and would be very happy to discuss further with interested individuals or organisations. Contact David Rice (drice5@me.com) or Ian Ker (catalystian@netscape.net).

Written by David Rice (Secretary, STCWA) and Ian Ker (Convenor, STCWA). Posted by Ian Ker, on behalf of the STC Committee.