New Era for Transport Federally Requires Important Decisions

The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has announced his new Ministerial team, which includes a Minister for Cities and the Built Environment. The PM has also stated that the Government would no longer prioritise roads over public transport.

These are hopeful signs that indicate a change to a more balanced way of looking at national transport requirements. The STC has sent an email to Malcolm Turnbull encouraging him to adopt this 'new way' and asking that he revisit federal funding in relation to MAX Light rail and the Perth Freight Link, in the Perth Metropolitan Area, and the issue of Tier 3 Grain Rail lines in regional WA.

Dear Prime Minister

On behalf of the Sustainable Transport Coalition of Western Australia, I congratulate you on becoming the 29th Prime Minister of Australia and wish you well.

The STC has been very concerned at the lack of effective involvement of the federal government over the past two years in matters of urban transport and, in particular, the government's 'sticking to its knitting', which meant funding roads and not public transport.  In this respect, we note with approval your appointment of the Hon Jamie Briggs MP as Minister for Cities and the Built Environment and your reported statement that the Government would no longer prioritise roads over public transport (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-22/light-rail-back-on-agenda-with-turnbull-expert-hopes/6793438).

The STC has long promoted transparency and a level playing field for transport funding and investment (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/transparency-and-objectivity-needed-in.html) as has the Federal Government's own Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (http://bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/overview-project-appraisal.aspx) and by Infrastructure Australia (http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/files/Australian-Infrastructure-Audit-Key-Findings.pdf). We hope that your appointment of a Minister for Cities and the Built Environment heralds a new era in the way business is carried out.

In Western Australia, your predecessor's refusal to fund public transport resulted in the withdrawal of federal funding from an important light rail project (MAX Light Rail) and its reallocation to a highly contentious road project (Perth Freight Link - see http://www.rethinkthelink.com.au to see how contentious it is) that had not previously even been on the transport agenda and runs counter to decades of port and related transport planning that had bipartisan political support. Infrastructure Australia has noted that "the Perth Freight Link project is not directly mentioned in any of [the relevant] State plans and policies" (http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/projects/files/WA-Perth-Freight-Link.pdf).

Neither the abandonment of MAX Light Rail nor the planning for the Perth Freight Link has yet reached the point of no return and we respectfully request that your Government reassess its funding priorities using objective analysis as part of an inclusive and transparent process.

Outside the Perth Metropolitan Area, there is a key issue of the closure of what are known as Tier 3 rail lines, which are primarily seasonal rail lines serving the multi-million tonne annual grain harvest of Western Australia. Lack of funding to maintain these lines is resulting in their closure and a massive increase in heavy trucks on country roads (largely local government roads) not designed for this level of loading.

The STC would be very happy to discuss these important issues with appropriate members of your Government by email (catalystian@netscape.net), phone (08 9328 8978 or mobile 0435 305 662) or, should the opportunity arise, in person.

With all best wishes for the future.

Ian Ker, Convenor, Sustainable Transport Coalition of Western Australia

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

Gareth Parker Agrees - But You Read It Here First

Yesterday, we posted a piece an item about the Infrastructure Australia Summary report on the Perth Freight Link (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/transparency-and-perth-freight-link.html).

Today, Gareth Parker, in the West Australian, presents a very similar take on the IA assessment. His concluding words should be required reading for all involved in this project:
"The Infrastructure Australia assessment gives him [Transport Minister Dean Nalder] cover [on his claims that PFL is a 'fantastic project']. But what he cannot claim is that the PFL is the best solution. That's what taxpayers are entitled to demand"

West Australian, 20th August 2015

Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

Transparency and the Perth Freight Link

We have previously commented on this blog about the need for greater transparency and objectivity in government decision-making. The recently (and reluctantly) released Infrastructure Australia report on the Perth Freight Link is a case in point.

This report does provide some greater clarity, but Infrastructure Australia itself has not been able to get sufficient information to satisfy itself that the PFL is the best option for dealing with the land transport needs of WA's international container trade.

Indeed, IA 'damns with faint praise' when it concludes: "After accounting for these [risk and uncertainty] factors, Infrastructure Australia still has a high degree of confidence that the BCR is greater than 1.0:1 for the project".

According to IA, "Major risks for the project include costs, environmental approvals and community support", which doesn't leave much in the way of certainty.

IA does not state that the project is warranted because it did not have comparable information on alternatives and therefore could not assess whether other options would provide better value to the WA community.

"A rapid BCR was completed for the preferred option only, assessed against the Base Case. A rapid BCR was not completed for additional options to determine if the preferred option provided the greatest net benefits."

Infrastructure Australia says the Business Case lies (or at best misleads) about alignment with State Strategic Priorities:

"The Business Case outlines strong links between the Perth Freight Link Project and State priorities, policies and initiatives listed below. At the time of assessment (May 2015), the Perth Freight Link project is not directly mentioned in any of these State plans and policies:
• State Planning Strategy 2050 and Metropolitan Region Scheme;
• Directions 2031 and Beyond;
• Murdoch Specialised Activity Centre Structure;
• Draft Moving People Network Plan;
• WA Regional Freight Transport Network Plan;
• Draft Perth Freight Transport Network Plan;
• Draft State Port Strategic Plan; and
• Fremantle Port Inner Harbour Port Development Plan."

This appears to be yet another reason why 'Moving People' and 'Moving Freight' have abandoned by the Government and are now being rewritten to comply with the political narrative (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/wonderfully-horrifying-and-depressing.html).

IA also states that proposed project was selected from 12 possible ones on the basis of subjective criteria, with only the 'preferred' project being subject to full benefit-cost analysis. None of the 12 options included consideration of the Outer Harbour.

"The preferred option was selected from 12 shortlisted options. All 12 shortlisted options were assessed against selection criteria and assigned an achievability rating. Based on this qualitative assessment, the preferred option was selected from a list of 4 high rated options."

The options considered included pricing and efficiency using existing road infrastructure, investment or subsidisation of rail and a number of road investment options. The options did not include consideration of the Outer Harbour at Cockburn Sound South of Perth."

Transport Minister, Dean Nalder, says that Roe 8 is required even for Outer Harbour (see ABC report, below), but this does not consider other alternatives, including properly configured rail and peripheral road infrastructure.

The Infrastructure Australia Assessment Summary can be found at http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/projects/files/WA-Perth-Freight-Link.pdf.

Written and Posted by Ian Ker, Convenor, STCWA

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