Articles: Congestion will cripple Brisbane

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Congestion will cripple Brisbane because of infrastructure shortage

Congestion will cripple Brisbane because of infrastructure shortage

   * Emma Chalmers
   * From: The Courier-Mail
   * March 05, 2010 12:58PM


CONGESTION will cost Brisbane more than other capital cities if more is not done to tackle the city's infrastructure shortage, a new report says.

A report on the State of Australian Cities from the Rudd Government's Major Cities Unit says the good quality of life on offer in our cities is under threat from congestion, population growth and living affordability.

"The level of car dependency in Australian cities has increased at a faster rate than population growth, creating traffic congestion problems as infrastructure and public transport have failed to keep pace with population growth,'' it says.

City Hall says congestion is costing Brisbane $3 billion a year now and it's tipped to grow.

The average cost of congestion is tipped to grow from 6.5 cents/km in 2005 to 11c/km in 2020.

The report will be released today in Brisbane by Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese.

In a speech today, he will say that the Commonwealth is committed to taking a major role in protecting the livability and viability of our cities.

"The major cities are clearly drivers of this nation's economy, employment and prosperity,'' an extract of his speech to the Queensland Media Club reads.

"We must ensure that our cities are productive.

"We must ensure their development is sustainable. We must ensure they are liveable.''

The Major Cities Unit report also found:

- the rate of physical inactivity in Brisbane was higher in 2004/05 than all other state capitals except Sydney and Darwin;

- 87 per cent of Queenslanders took steps to reduce their electricity use in the 12 months to 2007/08;

- Brisbane had the lowest proportion of homes with insulation installed at 47 per cent prior to the Rudd Government's troubled $2.45 billion home insulation program;

- almost 48 per cent of homes in Brisbane had a broadband internet connection in 2006.

[ozbob]

Rhetoric, spin?  Let us see some action, more trains from next week?

Not a great surprise is it?  Fancy that 'Congestion will cripple Brisbane ...' 

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Australian capitals slipping: report

Australian capitals slipping: report
TONY MOORE
March 5, 2010 - 12:52PM

A comparative lack of housing and transport infrastructure is the trigger behind Australia's capital cities sliding from the top of world livability rankings.

An Infrastructure Australia report released in Brisbane today shows Australia's five mainland state capitals have slipped in a ranking of 235 world capital cities in their ability to provide the necessary infrastructure needed for growth.

The cities are in the top 35 of the world capital cities in overall measure and when it comes to water conservation, Brisbane tops the country.

However when infrastructure is measured - including electricity supply, water availability, telephone and mail services, public transport, roads and international flights from local airports - Australia's mainland capitals are slipping.

"Compared to 2004, Sydney has slipped in this quality-of-living ranking from fifth to 10th; Melbourne from 12th to 18th; Perth from 20th to 21st; Adelaide from 24th to 30th; and, Brisbane from 24th to 34th," the report says.

Global human resource firm Mercer, which conducted the annual ranking of city livability, attributed the decline to a lack of housing and transport investment.

The rankings are included in Infrastructure Australia's inaugural State of Australian Cities 2010 report, which was launched in Brisbane today by Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese.

It reveals that overall, Australia's capital cities rank highly when measured against the world's cities.

It shows when infrastructure is added to other measures including stability, health care, education, culture and environment, Australian capitals occupy five of the top 20 places in the world.

"The other top places are dominated by cities from Canada, Switzerland and Austria," the report finds.

"Melbourne ranked third in the world, behind Vancouver and Vienna. Perth was equal fifth with Calgary in Canada, with Sydney sharing ninth place with Zurich, Adelaide in 11th place and Brisbane 16th on the list."

But these rankings also show Australian cities slipped in ranking in recent years.

"Compared to 2004, all the Australian cities have slipped backwards. Melbourne has gone from equal first with Vancouver to third; Perth from fourth to fifth; Sydney from equal sixth to ninth; Adelaide from sixth to 11th; and Brisbane from sixth to 16th," the report says.

It measures a range of factors - including conserving water, installing rain water tanks and dual flush toilets.

Brisbane topped the list in water saving, with over 75 per cent of households reporting a reduction

in personal water use, followed by Melbourne (67.3 per cent) and Adelaide (66.9 per cent).

It showed Australians happily adopt conservation techniques.

By the end of 2007, more than 80 per cent of Australian households had installed a dual-flush toilet, a 107 per cent increase from 1994.

It also shows Australia's media house prices - for years headlined by Sydney and Melbourne prices - are starting to concentrate into a narrower band.

The report summarises key facts about population in Australia's capital cities, showing that:

- Australia's population is projected to reach more than 35 million people by 2050;

- most of this growth - 72 per cent - will take place in Australia's capital cities;

- as reported in the recent Intergenerational Report, the number of people aged 65 and over will increase from 2.6 million (or 13.3 per cent) to 8.1 million (or 23 per cent) by 2050.

- the number of households in Australia will increase from 7.4 million in 2001 to 10.2 million in 2026, but the size of Australian households will fall from 2.6 to 2.3 per home.

The report also recognised Ipswich as one of the fastest and largest growth areas in Australia.

[#Metro]

Where is the "competent governance" indicator?

[ozbob]

Media Release 5 March 2010

SEQ:  Congestion and public transport

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport commuters has said the Infrastructure Australia report 'The State of Australian Cities 2010' highlights the need for public transport improvements now (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"In a statement on the 15th October 2009 by the Minister for Transport 'Paperless public transport a smarter way to go' it was stated 'Mr Lucas said extra funds would be used to help add more than 301,000 additional passenger capacity a week to the SEQ network by July next year'.  This commitment was to help offset the reaction to the significant fare increases for public transport."

"It is now March and we have only seen a small number of these promised seats introduced; 10% of the promised bus seat increases, 19% of the promised increases in ferry seats, and nothing for rail! (3)"

"The State of Australian Cities 2010 reports highlights the lack of proactive public transport implementation. Reports are fine but what is needed is action to provide high frequency services, particularly rail so that public transport becomes first choice. The reactive public transport policies are a major disincentive for transport change, what is needed is a dramatic increase in service frequency which will make public transport attractive. Long waits on rail stations are not conducive for change.  A failure of buses to meet rail services is not conducive for change. Overloaded trains buses and ferries are not conducive for change."

"We look forward to the extra trains, buses and ferry services that were promised last October.  The 1st of July is fast approaching."

References:

1.  http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/files/MCU_SOAC.pdf

2.  http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=66877

3.  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3241.msg18996#msg18996

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[Jon Bryant]

Surely this report and the 100 of studies calls for a suspension of any new or expansion of urban freeways including Norther Link and the implementation of a congestion charge on all congested roads!!!!!
NOW!!!!!!   

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Australia faces $20 billion road congestion problem

Australia faces $20 billion road congestion problem

    * From: AAP
    * March 05, 2010 2:59PM

ROAD congestion in Australia's cities could cost the economy $20 billion by 2020 without urgent action, a new report shows.

Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese released the State of Australian Cities report, by the Government's Infrastructure Australia, at a function in Brisbane today.

Mr Albanese said productivity growth in Australia's 17 cities with populations greater than 100,000 was critical to the economy.

"Over half of Australia's economic activity occurs in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, with a further 15 per cent in Perth and Adelaide," Mr Albanese said.

"There are signs that our cities may be slowing down."

He said urban congestion was hampering productivity, which was reliant on connections between businesses, people, goods and services.

The cost of road congestion, estimated at $9.4 billion in 2005, was likely to rise to $20 billion by 2020 without reform.

"Urban congestion contributes to traffic delays, increased greenhouse gas emissions, higher vehicle running costs and more accidents," Mr Albanese said.

Brisbane and Perth were expected to more than double in population size in the next 20 years, with Sydney and Melbourne to reach seven million.

Mr Albanese said sustainability needed to be not just an "add-on" but an essential component of urban policy.

"Transport emissions are projected to increase by 22.6 per cent over the period 2007 to 2020," he said.

"Efforts by all spheres of government, the private sector and communities to address sustainability have been increasing, but with variable success.

"The cities of tomorrow will need to confront our energy-intensive lifestyles, our water consumption, the growth in motor vehicle dependency, in congestion and transport emissions."

Efforts were also needed to address the mismatch between demographic trends and housing stocks.

"The average number of people per household dwelling declined from 3.1 in 1976 to 2.6 in 2006, but the average number of bedrooms per dwelling rose from 2.7 to 3," Mr Albanese said.

The report will form the basis of Government policy and feed into a Parliamentary inquiry into smart infrastructure, which is due to start next week.

All states are currently working on city plans, to be put in place by January 2012, following a decision by the Council of Australian Governments.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

National population policy needed: Lord Mayor

National population policy needed: Lord Mayor
TONY MOORE
March 6, 2010 - 5:19AM

Australia must have a national population policy to guide the debate about managing growth in its cities, Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman said yesterday.

Cr Newman's comments came after Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese told a Brisbane audience that different levels of government needed to work cooperatively to cope with population growth.

The Lord Mayor last week suggested the idea at a population summit and repeated his call yesterday.

He said the policy would set the framework for guiding investment decisions.

"I think all the [South-East Queensland] mayors have said very clearly - and we will be saying at Premier Bligh's growth summit - that there does need to be a national population policy," Cr Newman said.

The Lord Mayor said the federal government needed to make its case for an Australian population of 35.9 million.

"Let's have the debate, let's see why we need a population like that to support the taxbase to ensure that we can pay for people in their old age and hospitals," he said.

"But the case has not been made yet."

South-east Queensland's Council of Mayors have listed a national population policy as their number one issue in its submission to Premier Anna Bligh's growth summit, at the State Library at the end of the month.

"Having a clearer national picture on future population, the Federal Government then needs to accept some responsibility for the costs of its policies imposed on growth regions such as SEQ," the submission says.

However, Cr Newman warned against "top-down" bureaucracy guiding decision making.

"While there has to be an element of top-down advice from the federal government, it also has to be bottom-up," he said.

"I am deeply concerned that we don't end up with some sort of framework nationally, which would see local communities being told what they are going to get."

Mr Albanese said any responsibility for a national population policy did not fall under his portfolio.

"It is not up to me to develop the Government's policy on that," he said.

"What it is up to me to do is to determine and play a role in cities."

Mr Albanese said one clear issue that needed to be addressed was the building of bigger four-bedroom homes, when the size of families was decreasing.

"The average number of people per household dwelling declined from 3.1 in 1976 to 2.6 in 2006, but the average number of bedrooms per dwelling rose from 2.7 to 3," he said.

"But proportion of dwellings with 4 plus bedrooms increased from 17 per cent to 28 per cent.

"This mismatch between demographic trends and housing stock is unsustainable."

[#Metro]

There is just a little problem with a national population policy.

People don't like being rejected from living somewhere. It makes them angry.
People don't like being sent to the bush where there are fewer jobs.
People don't like their jobs moving, as we have seen in the papers with various workers from government departments and QR.

Right now there is no-one to blame for population growth but people themselves. The moment you make a minister for it, there will be someone to blame and that person will get targeted with "don't build here" and "we are full" in short a lot of places will be saying "don't pick me".

An unworkable situation.

[johnnigh]

There some good examples of moving employment from CBD to distant places in Australia. The best might be the NSW Dept of Agriculture, way, way back in the '70s or maybe early '80s.

The whole non-field work sections of the dept were shifted from Broadway to the city of Orange. All hell broke loose - the unions squealed and jumped up and down, senior managers resigned or applied for jobs in other depts. Eventually, the remaining staff sold up their Sydney homes and bought mansions in Orange with the equity released by sale of their overpriced Sydney properties. New staff were recruited. Within 5 years they were deeply embedded in Orange. The local ag college is now a major campus of Sydney University. So it can be done, and probably the more radical the move the better. Ipswich is too close to the rest of Brisbane, so workers will simply commute from their existing homes, and whinge if it is worse. However, even here time will heal these wounds.

As for Noosa style population caps, the outcome is simply to push up prices of housing, so if you want to create a localised wealthy city, cap the number of dwellings. Good work if you can get it...

My vote is for radical decentralisation of employment.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Commuters should pay for traffic gridlocks: experts

Commuters should pay for traffic gridlocks: experts
March 6, 2010 - 5:34AM

Commuters should be slugged with congestion taxes to ease gridlock that's costing the nation billions of dollars, public transport experts said in Brisbane yesterday.

A federal government report - the State of Australian Cities - revealed yesterday that road congestion cost the economy an estimated $9.4 billion in 2005, with the figure expected to balloon to $20 billion by 2020.

The International Public Transport Association said that unless immediate and decisive action was taken by all governments, cities were in danger of grinding to a halt.

"Imagine every city in Australia ... in gridlock during peak times and suffering the environmental, social and economic costs of urban congestion," executive director Peter Moore said in a statement.

"We need to stop this nightmare from becoming a reality."

The State of Australian Cities report forecasts Australia's population will grow to 36 million by 2050 and transport-related emissions to grow by more than 20 per cent between 2007 and 2020.

Professor John Stanley from the University of Sydney's Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies said congestion charging should feature prominently as part of an overhaul of Australia's road pricing and taxation system.

"We need a more accurate road pricing system which reflects the real costs of road travel, including congestion, health costs, air and noise pollution," Professor Stanley said in a statement.

"It is now time for a full investigation into how we can most effectively bring in congestion charging in our cities."

AAP

[#Metro]

This is about $900 per Australian. A huge amount.

What is interesting is that commuters already pay for the congestion they cause.
It is called waiting (a time penalty). Rail, light and heavy, will convert some of that time penalty into more time to do more useful things.

[skippy]

There some good examples of moving employment from CBD to distant places in Australia. The best might be the NSW Dept of Agriculture, way, way back in the '70s or maybe early '80s.

The whole non-field work sections of the dept were shifted from Broadway to the city of Orange. All hell broke loose - the unions squealed and jumped up and down, senior managers resigned or applied for jobs in other depts. Eventually, the remaining staff sold up their Sydney homes and bought mansions in Orange with the equity released by sale of their overpriced Sydney properties. New staff were recruited. Within 5 years they were deeply embedded in Orange. The local ag college is now a major campus of Sydney University. So it can be done, and probably the more radical the move the better. Ipswich is too close to the rest of Brisbane, so workers will simply commute from their existing homes, and whinge if it is worse. However, even here time will heal these wounds.

As for Noosa style population caps, the outcome is simply to push up prices of housing, so if you want to create a localised wealthy city, cap the number of dwellings. Good work if you can get it...

My vote is for radical decentralisation of employment.

Your comments are spot on the mark Johnnigh. Decentralisation from the Brisbane CBD to the outer suburbs means a reduction in public transport mode share and an increase in urban road vehicle travel (albiet often against the peak). ATO a classic example of this. I would support a radical decentralisation however, to places like Toowoomba, Gold and Sunshine Coast, Mackay etc

[frereOP]

Our political system cripples good public transport policy decisions.

I have always been a critic of the Westminster Parliamentary system with a "government" and an "opposition".  This is a convention that is not defined in our constitutions (federal or state).  Good policy options put up by governments HAVE to be opposed by oppositions who are obsessed by electoral self interest and who ultimately drive public opinion.  Only a brave government will push good policy against the tide of public opinion.

The most recent example in Queensland is the rejection of the proposed congestion tax for Brisbane by the Queensland Government who, fearing an electoral backlash at a time when it is looking for some good news, had no other option.  This tax - originally opposed by the opposition for no obvious reason except political self-interest - is good public policy and it would have served two purposes - it would reduce unnecessary traffic in the Brisbane CBD, and it could have provided a much needed income stream for funding public transport infrastructure.

I feel "Rail Back On Track" should support the introduction of this tax and urge both sides of parliament to adopt it as policy thereby neutralising the political implications for both sides.

[#Metro]

Hmm. But the thing is that governments must ultimately give people what they want.
Look at Brisbane. Sprawling and low density. That is how people seem to want it. Otherwise they wouldn't be buying that McMansion on the fringe.

And they expect high speed bullet rail to work in the CBD.

I think the CBD has something like 50% of the jobs in Brisbane or something like that. Just look at how tiny a footprint it makes- taking up a single suburb. Then look around it, at the massive sprawl that surrounds it. If you imgaine that those offices were all residential buildings, you can just begin to get an idea of how much space we have unnecessarily used for housing.

However, that is what people seem to want. Now we have this congestion issue and costs for extending services out to the fringe. Who will pay for that?

[frereOP]

Yes that's exactly right.  People DO want their brick veneer McMansions on their quarter acre block and they want the best public transport in the world.  I'm happy for that to happen but the fixed cost of public transport (ie unavoidable costs that are incurred irrespective of how many passengers you get ) has to be spread across the number of people it serves.  They then can't then go and complain about the cost of infrastructure like fares, electricity, rates etc etc etc which they might think are too expensive.

That's the reason for the move to higher density housing (ie the McMansions on 400m² blocks) and the establishment of regional hight density residential and commercial centres like Chermside, Indooroopilly and Mt Gravatt.

Governments only have to give the people what they want because of the nature of the political system we have.  That isn't necessarily what is needed.  A benign dictatorship is by far the best type of government because they can make the decisions about what is needed, and implement them without the need to worry about their own political skins.  Unfortunately, benign dictatorships just don't exist.

[O_128]

Governments only have to give the people what they want because of the nature of the political system we have.  That isn't necessarily what is needed.  A benign dictatorship is by far the best type of government because they can make the decisions about what is needed, and implement them without the need to worry about their own political skins.  Unfortunately, benign dictatorships just don't exist.

that or a real 3 party system where all have a minimum number of seats. the current idea/oppose for no reason system doesnt work

[ozbob]

From the City News 10th March 2010 page 7

Traffic tax urged to avoid gridlock