RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Quote from: ozbob on November 26, 2021, 05:52:42 AM
https://twitter.com/CatherineKingMP/status/1463759663808188418

IA is a politicised joke.  Matters not which political flavour is current.

Updated Infrastructure Priority list

> https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/search-infrastructure-priority-list?f%5B0%5D=evaluation_date_date_added_to_the_ipl%3A2022

WA Today --> Infrastructure Australia board members step down ahead of review

QuoteSeveral Infrastructure Australia board members have agreed to step down ahead of an independent review ordered by the new federal government over concerns the agency has become overly partisan and lost direction.

Infrastructure Minister Catherine King on Friday said the review was essential to restoring confidence in the organisation that vets and ranks major projects ranging from roads to dams. ...

It is interesting to note that when Infrastructure Australia was set up in 2008, a 2010 Auditors report noted these points..

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE
Conduct by Infrastructure Australia of the First National Infrastructure Audit and Development of the Infrastructure Priority List
Published Friday 23 July 2010

Pipeline projects

59. The concept of a project pipeline had been contemplated by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator in the approach it had taken to preparing recommendations on the Interim Priority List. In particular, the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator had identified both priority projects and those with potential for the Interim Priority List. For the purposes of the Interim Priority List, to be recommended by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator for inclusion as a pipeline project with potential:

the project submission was required to be supported by sufficient information for the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator to scrutinise the profiling for the project, with the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator's assessment then concluding that the project was, as a minimum, a good strategic fit; and
there needed to be indications that the BCR for the project was likely to be at least 1.5, but sufficient information had not yet been provided to support the proponent's economic appraisal.

60. However, the pipeline projects included in the Final Priority List reflected less stringent criteria (see Table S2). Whilst a small number of the 28 pipeline projects had not been assessed as demonstrating a fit with Infrastructure Australia's strategic priorities, the most significant difference between the priority projects and those included on the pipeline in the Final Interim List related to their economic appraisal. In particular:

13 of the pipeline projects did not have a BCR, whereas all priority projects had a BCR of 1.3 or higher; and
for the remaining 15 pipeline projects that had a BCR associated with them, the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator's assessment had been that there was insufficient evidence to support the economic viability of the project. In some instances, this was because the BCRs were assessed as out of date by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator. In other instances, the economic analysis was assessed as preliminary or inadequate.

Under these assessments, Cross River Rail, with its state derived BCR of 1.21, wouldn't have made the priority list.

https://twitter.com/CatherineKingMP/status/1600668700226437120

https://twitter.com/CatherineKingMP/status/1600668706505256960

IN QLD --> Albo dusts off his old plan for independent body to decide on major projects

QuoteA national advisory body is set to have a greater role in overseeing road, rail, water, energy and other proposals from concept to completion, following an independent review.

Infrastructure Australia was set up in 2008 by the then infrastructure minister and now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to provide expert advice on road, rail and other major capital works.

Labor has been critical of the organisation's treatment under the coalition government.

"The former government left Infrastructure Australia to drift with a lack of clear direction, partisan board appointments and an unwieldy list of projects," Infrastructure Minister Catherine King said.

"It is time for renewal." ...

Quote from: ozbob on December 08, 2022, 14:29:17 PMIN QLD --> Albo dusts off his old plan for independent body to decide on major projects

QuoteA national advisory body is set to have a greater role in overseeing road, rail, water, energy and other proposals from concept to completion, following an independent review.

Infrastructure Australia was set up in 2008 by the then infrastructure minister and now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to provide expert advice on road, rail and other major capital works.

Labor has been critical of the organisation's treatment under the coalition government.

"The former government left Infrastructure Australia to drift with a lack of clear direction, partisan board appointments and an unwieldy list of projects," Infrastructure Minister Catherine King said.

"It is time for renewal." ...

The key action required is a review of the BCR Methodology which sees rail and active/public transport projects struggle to achieve a Positive BCR but a freeway  romps in despite Induced Demand congesting the road soon after its opening for no economic benefit!!

QuoteThe key action required is a review of the BCR Methodology which sees rail and active/public transport projects struggle to achieve a Positive BCR but a freeway  romps in despite Induced Demand congesting the road soon after its opening for no economic benefit!!

Well, when you announce a project first, and do the planning later this will affect the sort of numbers that are coming out of a project like the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop.

Adequacy of Suburban Rail Loop business case
https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/quality-major-transport-infrastructure-project-business-cases#34199--adequacy-of-suburban-rail-loop-business-case

Reviews happen all the time, here is the latest IA one, published this year --->

2022 Review of Infrastructure Australia's cost benefit analysis methodology
A report for Infrastructure Australia
https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-03/2022%20CBA%20methodology%20review.pdf

Induced Demand Also Applies to PT

QuoteThis [Induced Demand] is often used as an argument against building the new car infrastructure, but people don't talk often about how induced demand applies to other modes. In this video we explain why induced demand does apply to transit, walking, and cycling infrastructure, but with different consequences.

Didn't IA put out a pearler that rail to Melbourne airport wasn't warranted because the Tullamarine freeway has just been upgraded, and we should wait until that is congested before we build the railway line 

Basically I think governments will put in whatever figures they feel like to make the BCR positive.

It's really no different to when they were building airport link and they worked out the traffic volume that would justify the project and then did the financials around that.

Wake me up when economists actually get it right.

Actually, this is what they wrote.

QuoteA key driver of the economic result is the timeframe for delivery and the high frequency rail service an airport connection necessitates, which increases costs. Although construction completion is expected in 2029, most benefits do not materialise until the (recently widened) Tullamarine Freeway reaches capacity, forecast in 2036.

Consequently, the business case forecasts lower passenger volumes on a volume-to-capacity basis for the first 10 years of operation, before ramping up substantially in the 2040's. This indicates that construction could be deferred to better align with forecast demand and still ensure an operational airport rail service before the Tullamarine Freeway reaches capacity.

All that the Melbourne Airport case demonstrates is that when you widen a freeway you erode the benefits of PT on the same corridor and cause patronage to lag for a period. This causes the benefits to be smaller. Not that BCR is inappropriate for project appraisal.

If the freeway had not been expanded, forecast train patronage would be higher sooner.

Should the model have been altered to ignore the presence of the freeway entirely and just forecast high patronage for the train in all scenarios no matter what because it's a train?  

This is essentially the same point that Jonno makes when he says stop investing in motorways as it kills PT patronage. Because it does!

You would expect such an effect in real life, and you can also see it in the model too.

Melbourne Airport Rail
https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-10/Evaluation%20Summary%20-%20Melbourne%20Airport%20Rail.pdf

It was a very ironic observation. The investment in a freeway supported by a false BCR is used to lower the BCR on an investment in rail which is typically under-estimated anyway

QuoteIt was a very ironic observation. The investment in a freeway supported by a false BCR is used to lower the BCR on an investment in rail which is typically under-estimated anyway

Well, they still have the project info up. I'm not going to take a position either way, but I'll place the info here for interested members to look at.

CityLink Tulla Widening
https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/mrpv/citylink-tulla-widening

Tullamarine Freeway Widening - IA Briefing
https://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/projects/ProjectDetails.aspx?Project_id=053402-14VIC-NP

Quote from: Victorian Government WebsiteOverview
Major works are complete on the Tullamarine Freeway.

You can now save up to 17 minutes of travel time on a round trip between the Bolte Bridge and Melbourne Airport.

The upgrade has increased capacity and eased congestion along 24 km of the Tullamarine Freeway, CityLink and West Gate Freeway, from Melbourne Airport through to Power Street, Southbank.

Average speeds during the morning peak almost doubled since the new lanes opened.

The cost was $228.4 million but that was the public sector component. There was another two stages, the BCR was much higher for those sections. So high that TransUrban simply built and paid for those sections itself and collected the toll revenue. The tolled part isn't going to congest because its essentially a type of (private) road user charge/decongestion charge.

QuoteSections 2 and 3 cover the Southern portion of the road from Melrose Drive to the M1, with an anticipated cost of $876 million (nominal). These sections would be funded by Transurban through changes to existing tolling arrangements. Contractual close has been reached on these two segments.

QuoteBCR: 4.5:1 (for all three segments), possibly as high as 10:1 for section One

It is worth remembering that Public Transport to Melbourne Airport is also self-supporting, but its a BRT SkyBus, not a train. Trains just require more infrastructure works to start operations, so it costs more and thus not surprising really.

It raises interesting thoughts as to whether the train to Brisbane Airport would have been better built as BRT from the outset. 

Independent Australia --> Infrastructure Australia failing to do its job

QuoteWHILE THE RECENT review of Infrastructure Australia – 'the nation's independent infrastructure advisor' –  recommended some changes, these changes will not lead to better integration of transport and land use in our cities. ...

Advertisement in Couriermail 6th May 2023 page 29



 

Projects that land on the IA Desk should meet two mandatory criteria:

1. Pass a National Interest Test, judged independently by public servants on objective merit criteria (OMC). I know OMC is hard to follow when there are distractions like marginal seats etc, but it really has to be done this way.

Good candidates for roles such as these could be judges, audit staff etc. Another potential approach is a college of peers, where state and territories send their own staff to act as peer reviewers of other projects. Every state and territory would have their own staff review the projects of other state and territories other than their own.

This step will filter out things like more local car parks at train stations etc. There needs to be a distinguishable and compelling national interest component.

2. Have a completed business case

Absolutely no Federal funding should be available without a completed and validated business case. This probably needs to be written into law rather than just rely on convention.

Only after these two steps are complete, then should the proposal land on the relevant minister's desk for approval/rejection.

Note -

Test 2 does not rule out the approval of a project with a zero or negative BCR or NPV. It just makes it clear that if you choose to do so, that it was your perogative.

There should also be an expiry date for projects where the funding is withdrawn and returned to the funding pool for other projects. After X years, if the project is not started, approval lapses and they need to reapply.

IA: CEO Newsletter - 31 March 2023

https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/listing/newsletter/ceo-newsletter-31-march-2023

https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/listing/newsletter/ceo-newsletter-31-march-2023

Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023

The Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 was introduced on 22 March and proposes to:

Clearly articulate Infrastructure Australia's role
Redefine Infrastructure Australia's functions and products
Establish a new governance structure.

The Bill defines IA's mandate, refines the product suite to better support government investment objectives and improves evaluation functions.

Infrastructure Australia's role

The object of the Bill is to clearly articulate Infrastructure Australia's role as the Australian Government's expert independent advisor on nationally significant infrastructure, advising the Government on infrastructure that supports the economy, builds the nation, and addresses the challenges and opportunities of the future.

As noted by Minister Catherine King in her address to Parliament, we have already begun enacting this positive change, providing advice into the current budget process.

Functions and Products

The Bill would amend the current Act to redefine our functions and products, guided by the Australian Government's infrastructure investment objectives and strategic priorities.

Infrastructure audits will consider the work of state and territory infrastructure bodies, to identify nationally significant needs and identify any gaps.

The Infrastructure Priority List would be shorter, more targeted and linked to our audits and Australian Government priorities, with a focus on nationally-significant infrastructure investment proposals put forward by the Commonwealth, states and territories.

We would have the ability to inquire into matters relating to nationally-significant infrastructure.

Governance structure

The Bill also articulates changes to our governance structure providing for the appointment of three Commissioners supported by an advisory council.

I certainly hope that these new moves to sort out IA stick, and make it completely non-partisan.

Frankly, some of their past efforts are very embarrassing.  Evaluation methodology needs to be updated.

The politicisation of IA in the past (both sides) has resulted in less than satisfactory outcomes.

Quote from: #Metro on May 06, 2023, 09:42:46 AMProjects that land on the IA Desk should meet two mandatory criteria:

1. Pass a National Interest Test, judged independently by public servants on objective merit criteria (OMC). I know OMC is hard to follow when there are distractions like marginal seats etc, but it really has to be done this way.

Good candidates for roles such as these could be judges, audit staff etc. Another potential approach is a college of peers, where state and territories send their own staff to act as peer reviewers of other projects. Every state and territory would have their own staff review the projects of other state and territories other than their own.

This step will filter out things like more local car parks at train stations etc. There needs to be a distinguishable and compelling national interest component.

2. Have a completed business case

Absolutely no Federal funding should be available without a completed and validated business case. This probably needs to be written into law rather than just rely on convention.

Only after these two steps are complete, then should the proposal land on the relevant minister's desk for approval/rejection.

Note -

Test 2 does not rule out the approval of a project with a zero or negative BCR or NPV. It just makes it clear that if you choose to do so, that it was your perogative.

There should also be an expiry date for projects where the funding is withdrawn and returned to the funding pool for other projects. After X years, if the project is not started, approval lapses and they need to reapply.

I am intrigued by the National Interest test!  It seems that local and maybe even regional passenger rail (e.g Toowoomba Rail) is not seen as in the National Interest and this not funded 50:50... yet the highest impact of people driving is to the health budget which is funded by the Federal Govt.  So supporting commuter rail is in the National Interest!

https://twitter.com/CatherineKingMP/status/1661203084792700928

It's good that IA processes are strengthened. The role of these agencies is to provide frank and fearless advice using sound methodology, information/data, and given input circumstances.

From time to time an analysis will be ugly, inconvenient, unpopular, not what supporters expected etc. This cannot be helped because it isn't the role of the agency to sell pork.

Queensland Parliament

https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2023/672-2023.pdf

Question on Notice
No. 672
Asked on 24 May 2023

MR J BLEIJIE ASKED MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS AND MINISTER FOR
DIGITIAL SERVICES (HON M BAILEY)

QUESTION:

Will the Minister advise (a) if the Minister or the department have been consulted as part of the
Federal Government's independent infrastructure review and (b) if so, the advice provided for
each project being managed by the Department of Transport and Main Roads?

ANSWER:

I thank the Member for Kawana for the question.

The Honourable Catherine King MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development
and Local Government, wrote to me on 9 May 2023 regarding the 2023–24 Federal Budget
process and the Australian Government's Independent Strategic Review of its Infrastructure
Investment Program (the Review).

Consultations have commenced and the Review team have met with officers from Department of
Transport and Main Roads (TMR). TMR has provided project descriptions to the Review and has
not provided advice on projects at this time.

The Palaszczuk Government will continue to advocate for the state's share of the national
program through this process. This must reflect Queensland's status as the state with the fastest
growing and most decentralised population and also that our road, transport and rail investments
are carefully planned to respond to that status.

In other words, TMR refuses to prioritise the projects (put them in order of construction importance). It's an 'all or nothing' approach.

Interesting read ...

Exploring systemic bias in Australasian urban road/rail investment

https://australasiantransportresearchforum.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ATRF2017_093.pdf

QuoteAbstract

Since 2007 more than half the world's population has lived in cities, with urban populations
forecast by the UN to double by 2030. Australia and New Zealand are both among the most
urbanised countries in the world. All Australian and New Zealand cities face issues with
growing population and traffic congestion. There is strong evidence that solutions to urban
congestion lie in space efficient modes such as heavy rail, light rail and busway (hereafter
rail), and that increasing road capacity may be self - defeating. Despite this, the majority of
funds for urban transport capital investment in Australia and New Zealand have historically
been spent on road projects. This continues to be the case, despite a shift away from this
approach in most OECD countries.

This paper explores the balance between road and rail projects in Australia and New
Zealand and places this in an OECD context where data permits. Evidence for the
effectiveness of road and rail investment to alleviate congestion is investigated. Assessment
methodologies for road and rail projects in Australia and New Zealand are compared to
international practice. It is concluded that there is no systemic bias in assessment
methodology, but there is in capital funding allocation. There has been a long history of
urban road programs with priority over rail investment. For the period from the 1950s to the
1990s this was based on demand pressures. Those pressures have changed significantly in
recent years, but the balance of investment has not changed as quickly. The current
investment balance is contrary to international practice, and the road capital investment is
unlikely to achieve its stated objectives in the long term.

QuoteIt is concluded that there is no systemic bias in assessment
methodology, but there is in capital funding allocation.

This is a polite way of saying once the assessment is done, the decision-makers ignore it and carry on doing what they always intended to do. That's politics.

Ultimately, as the cost of infrastructure rises massively the inefficient approaches will be priced out of existence, even for governments.

A period of toll road expansion will mark the end of that era. Toll roads will exhaust all possible road-first options.

I speculate after that, there will be a new era of doing what we already know works - lots of BUZ-style buses, BRT and LRT in Priority B ROW.

https://x.com/CatherineKingMP/status/1732964278079205493?s=20

https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/c-king/media-release/next-step-empowered-infrastructure-australia

The Hon Catherine King MP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government

Next step for an empowered Infrastructure Australia

8th December 2023

The Australian Government has delivered on its election commitment to restore Infrastructure Australia (IA) as the Commonwealth's adviser on major infrastructure investment, with the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 now having passed both Houses of Parliament.

IA is an independent statutory body that was created under the previous Labor Government to provide expert research and advice to the Australian Government on projects and reforms relating to infrastructure priorities across Australia.

Under the Liberals and Nationals, the organisation lost direction, was full of political appointments and its advice on infrastructure matters was often not considered.

The legislative changes define IA's mandate, improve the evaluation of infrastructure proposals, and refine the products IA delivers to better support government investment objectives – including ensuring a more targeted Infrastructure Priority List (IPL).

A more focused and targeted IPL will mean that proposals considered for inclusion will need to be aligned to the Government's policy objectives, and within IA's remit of transport, water, energy and communications infrastructure.

IA's functions have been redefined and a stronger governance structure has been set up, comprising three expert commissioners to be supported by an expert advisory council.

The legislation delivers on a critical part of the Government's response to the recommendations handed down by the Independent Review of Infrastructure Australia, which was undertaken in 2022.

Other recommendations from the Independent Review of Infrastructure Australia will be implemented through a revised Statement of Expectations, which will be issued by the Government in early 2024 to IA.

Despite months of the Liberals and Nationals refusing to engage constructively and obstructing the passing of this critical legislation, the Government has worked to ensure the successful passage of the Bill this week.

We will also move quickly to appoint commissioners through a merit-based and publicly advertised process, which will be undertaken as soon as possible.

By underpinning sound infrastructure investment decisions, a revitalised, respected and trusted IA will support the Government in achieving productivity, economic growth and sustainability outcomes.

It will also continue to identify opportunities to streamline work with the states and territories, allowing resources to be better invested in infrastructure priorities moving forward.

This legislation is part of a broader suite of reforms the Government is implementing to ensure the Commonwealth invests in properly planned and targeted infrastructure, including the recent release of the Infrastructure Policy Statement and our response to the Independent Strategic Review of the Infrastructure Investment Program.

====

Infrastructure Australia:  https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au

Facebook ...

^

This is an important move. Let's hope that IA is again truly non-partisan, and Queensland gets its fair share of the infrastructure pie!

Pork barrelling: what is it and why is it a problem?| News glossary

So at least funding self-defeating road projects fairly?

ABC News --> Workforce shortage threatens hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure investment

QuoteA new report from the nation's infrastructure advisory agency is warning of massive workforce shortages, jeopardising hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure, housing and energy projects across the country.

Infrastructure Australia's annual market capacity report has revealed there are only 177,000 workers currently in the system, despite there being enough demand for the equivalent of 405,000 workers.

Key points:

. Infrastructure Australia is warning about a shortage of construction materials

. Chief executive Adam Copp says there are not enough workers or materials to complete Australia's investment goals

. He says there needs to be a greater emphasis on using recycled materials ...

https://x.com/humantransit/status/1767181704748515337?s=20

Rail Express --> Government names interim Commissioners to lead Infrastructure Australia

QuoteThe Federal Government has appointed interim Commissioners to Infrastructure Australia (IA) following the amendments to the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, which passed the Parliament in December 2023, coming into force earlier this month.

These appointments are part of the Federal Government's broader reforms to restore IA as the Commonwealth's pre-eminent adviser on infrastructure planning and investment. The new governance structure introduces three commissioners to replace the existing IA board.

Gabrielle Trainor AO has been appointed to the role of interim Chief Commissioner, while Clare Gardiner-Barnes has been appointed as interim Commissioner effective 15 April 2024.

Trainor and Gardiner-Barnes take on the new roles after previously serving as Chair and Director of Infrastructure Australia's Board respectively. ...

https://x.com/urbanizationist/status/1806638299852738899

ABC News --> State and territory taxpayers set to bankroll more major infrastructure projects under secretive deal

QuoteIn short:
Queensland, South Australia and the ACT have signed up to new agreements with the Commonwealth that mean they will bankroll a greater share of major infrastructure projects.

The potentially politically explosive overhaul is the first major shift in Commonwealth-state land transport infrastructure funding since 2019.

What's next?
The ABC understands other jurisdictions are close to signing up to the new arrangements.

Queensland, South Australia and the ACT have signed up to a secretive five-year roads and railway deal that will force every state and territory taxpayer to bankroll a greater share of major infrastructure projects.

In a series of agreements that are yet to be made public by the federal government, or the Labor-dominated state and territory governments involved, the Commonwealth appears to have succeeded in shifting its burden for funding projects of "national significance" from an 80:20 split to 50:50.

The potentially politically explosive overhaul is the first major shift in Commonwealth-state land transport infrastructure funding arrangements since 2019 and comes as Labor governments in Queensland and the NT head for elections in the coming weeks and months.

Those jurisdictions have an incentive to agree to federal Transport Minister Catherine King's policy shift in order to give themselves clarity over the scale and quantity of road and other projects they can announce during their coming political campaigns.

The ABC understands other jurisdictions are close to signing up to the new arrangements, which are determined once a single state or territory agrees to terms with the Commonwealth.

NSW is understood to be close to signing the deal and has already secured Commonwealth funding agreements for its biggest projects.

More > https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-24/secret-infrastructure-deal-politics-adelaide-perth-canberra/104263898

 

The Age --> States will have to prove big builds worth it before Albanese government chips in $

QuoteA national funding deal will toughen the rules on road and rail spending worth $125 billion after the federal government said Victoria would have to prove the economic case for its controversial Suburban Rail Loop.

The new terms will put more onus on the states to prove the business case for mammoth construction, while the federal government also wants them to fund an equal share of regional road spending to create more incentives to keep costs down.

Federal Infrastructure Minister Catherine King said the changes would demand better planning from the states before federal money was paid, declaring the new terms "can and must" prevent delays and cost blowouts. ...