Call for Perth Freight Link Project to be Suspended

More pressure on this ill-thought-out project.

Click to enlarge

Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

Senate Agrees On Need For Transparency

We have written previously in this blog about the need for transparency in decision-making (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/transparency-and-objectivity-needed-in.html).

It seems the Senate agrees and has called for documents relating to the Perth Freight Link to be made public. The Senate has given the Federal Government until 5pm (AEST) on Tuesday to release traffic modelling and cost benefits information for the project, as well as any Barnett Government business cases submitted. It also wants the Infrastructure Australia Board evaluation of the project to be made public.

As we have previously noted (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/httpsau.html), this has all the hallmarks of the East-West Link in Melbourne, for which the then-Victorian Government refused to release documents - and when documents were released after a change of Government they showed that there was no commercial or socio-economic justification for the project.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-10/senate-demands-freight-link-documents/6686936

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

More On International Comparisons

http://www.londontoolkit.com/blog/eats/coffee-shop-chains-in-london

International comparisons are always fraught with difficulty. My favourites are those that try to compare the price of something in various countries - which rely on exchange rates that have nothing to do with relative purchasing power.

We often hear whingeing about the price of coffee in Perth by comparison with other places in Australia and overseas. Exchange rates don't affect the within-Australia comparisons, but they do affect international ones.

For example, a AU$4.50 cup of coffee seemed expensive (equivalent to £2.50) compared to the UK a year ago - but, now the value of the Australian dollar has dropped, that same cup of coffee is equivalent to £2.00 - similar to the price in a typical UK high-street coffee shop.

And so it is with public transport. As Alex Delbosc clearly shows, we should be wary of comparing the public transport we use every day at home with those we use as visitors overseas, because we use them for different purposes and our expectations as visitors are different from those we have as commuters.

We could wish, however, that we in Perth had a clear vision for public transport rather than continuing to argue about who said what and what they really meant - and that's just within the Government.

http://theconversation.com/public-transport-is-always-greener-on-the-other-side-44307

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

Chalk and Cheese Comparison to Ditch MAX Light Rail

If the report on the West website today (Nalder finds light rail 'unviable' - https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/28774077/nalder-finds-light-rail-unviable - also at right) is correct, one is forced to ask whether our Transport Minister understands anything about light rail.

On the basis of a single visit to Singapore, he finds that light rail is 'unviable' - in contrast to the views of his predecessor and the findings of the Government's own draft (never-to-be-finalised) public transport plan. 

One is forced to wonder if the Minister actually had a look at the Singapore system, as distinct from just talking with people in an office, as the proposed Perth MAX and the Singapore system are as unlike as chalk and cheese.

And did he talk only with the operators? If so, this would have omitted many of the key stakeholders, as light rail is as much about land use and development as it is about operating public transport.

In terms of technology, the MAX light rail proposed for Perth is a conventional steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system entirely at ground level. This is a tried and true technology, construction of which is 'standard practice' and low-risk.

The Singapore system, however, is an automated people mover system similar to that at Singapore Airport, not a traditional light rail system. The lines are fully automated and elevated, and run largely on viaducts in order to save scarce land space.

The cost of an automated, elevated system will be much higher than a conventional on-ground system.

And Singapore is not Perth. While Singapore does have very high density, conventionally regarded as supportive of rail-based public transport, the Singapore light rail serves a primarily residential area on the north-eastern edge of Singapore Island. It does not serve the city centre. Instead, it relies on interchange with the MRT (heavy rail) system for journeys to the downtown core of Singapore, which is some 15km away as the crow flies.

If taxpayer's money is to be used to find reasons not to build the MAX LRT in Perth, the Government should, at the very least, not insult our intelligence by basing its decisions on irrelevant so-called evidence from a situation that bears no similarity to Perth.

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

RAC 'Disappointed'. Community Should Be Angry

The RAC is presumably being polite when it says that it is disappointed at the Government's abandoning of its transport plans after years of work - the STC agrees (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/wonderfully-horrifying-and-depressing.html).

The Western Australian community should be angry at the waste of resources and the continual ignoring of professional advice.

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

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