Article: Australia’s transport funding challenge

[ozbob]

From Rail Express click here!

Australia's transport funding challenge

Australia's transport funding challenge
by Rail Express — last modified Aug 08, 2012 12:41 PM
— filed under: Weekly Top Stories, Rail

A new coalition will see for the first time, major transport industry groups and big business across all modes unite in a national partnership to advocate for reform and a full intergovernmental review of the way transport infrastructure in Australia is funded and priced.
 
Australia's transport funding challenge

By Jennifer Perry

Australasian Railway Association (ARA) chief economist Ash Salardini told Rail Express that the new coalition – the Transport Reform Network (TRN) – calls for the end of transport infrastructure that is funded by tax payers, along with funding decisions that are driven by "political expediency."

"Australian governments no longer have the funds and the Australian economy cannot afford the wasted productivity of current approaches to transport infrastructure," Salardini says.

While the introduction of Infrastructure Australia (IA) and state-based entities such as Infrastructure NSW, will slowly address the challenges and waste caused by politically expedient infrastructure decisions, Salardini says nothing has been done to address Australia's critical infrastructure funding gap.

Current approaches to infrastructure provision will continue Australia's infrastructure backlog – a backlog that Infrastructure Australia (IA) prices at several hundreds of billions of dollars – as well as putting severe strain on national and state budgets.

"This backlog means that by 2020, road congestion will cost Australia's GDP $20bn," Salardini says.

"It will also further deteriorate Australia's manufacturing base where manufacturers will offshore not just due to a high dollar but because of inefficient freight transport networks – and leave our cities and communities crippled by snarling traffic."

User pay system
The TRN is calling on the Federal Government to show leadership in bringing governments and the community together to review and reform current approaches of raising and allocating revenues in the transport sector, and specifically argues for a user pay system of infrastructure provision.

A user pay system would charge commercial users of transport infrastructure, such as heavy vehicles, directly for their use of transport infrastructure.

"Directly charging users ensures that there will be enough revenues raised to maintain and provide adequate transport infrastructure, eliminating the need for significant tax payer subsidies for the provision of infrastructure," he says.

"Importantly, a user pay system will also provide significant incentives for the private sector to invest in transport infrastructure, creating a stream of revenue that can be directly linked to the investment.

"Given the steady demand for the use of transport infrastructure, a move towards a user pay system could attract the hundreds of billions of dollars stored in superannuation and managed funds. This would again benefit government budgets, removing the need for multi-billion dollar government funded infrastructure."

A user pay system would also match the provision of infrastructure to demand.

"Revenues will flow to pieces of infrastructure in high demand, automatically identifying where upgrades and new infrastructure will be required," he says.

"This is a vast improvement on the current system, where infrastructure provision is equally governed by demand and political considerations.".

The launch of TRN – on August 29 at the Sydney Town Hall – will be an event of national significance with over 500 policy makers, industry and community leaders attending.

Members of the TRN include the ARA, the Property Council of Australia, Roads Australia, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (IPA), and up to 30 other companies and industry organisations.

For more information on the coalition and the launch visit: www.roads.org.au/events/show/204

PPP in Transport
12th-13th September 2012
Radisson Blu Plaza Hotel Sydney
www.informa.com.au/ppptransport

[ozbob]

The Transport Reform Network is a turning point.

Congestion $20Billion,  road trauma is now > $40Billion and going up exponentially.

There is little point in not moving to better rail systems now.  It is fundamental economics.

[somebody]

The Transport Reform Network is a turning point.

Congestion $20Billion,  road trauma is now > $40Billion and going up exponentially.

There is little point in not moving to better rail systems now.  It is fundamental economics.

And yet, when we do invest in rail in QLD, we make rather pathetic peak only systems (RCH, MBRL) or amplifications with no actual service improvements (FG, S2K, Cab-Beerb).  I suppose Corinda-Darra did get a quarter hourly service out of a quad track.

[ozbob]

Queensland is hardly a barometer of success for anything really, is it?   

[Stillwater]

Electrification of the Brisbane suburban network - outside funding
Duplication to Caboolture - outside funding
Track augmentation, Beenleigh Line (first round) - outside funding
extra tunnel, Brisbane City - outside funding
line extension to Gold Coast - outside funding
Gold Coast light rail - outside funding mainly
Springfield line to Richlands - developer funding primer
MBRL - outside funding primer
CRR - state's used to this now, wants outside funding

[SurfRail]

^ You forgot Airport line (outside funding)... 

[somebody]

So what you are indicating the Qld PT system is at the beck and call of the Fed's.

What's the point of states running PT if the feds provide the bulk of expansion funding?

Perhaps QLD should look after its own house <ducks>

[Stillwater]

Nope, Qld cries poor always, gets feds to pay for expansion.  This is not the case in other states, even blessed WA, oft quoted here.  Qld currently hoping for billions from feds for CRR.

[somebody]

The whole dual/tripple govt funding in Aust is out of hand. Each of the local and state govts should have a accountability and funding level that makes them independent of the next level up. The states are currently accountable for more than their revenues allow, likewise councils. So the states should hand over departments like Health etc until they are balanced and focus on portfolio's that are more state or regional based. Health surely is an easy one as its funded as part of "each Australian is entitled to equivalent level of care" yada yada and Medicare levy was is on PAYE tax which goes to the feds to pay for much the of health system.

Fully agree.  KRudd went to the election promising to end the blame game and take it over, but then decided he only wanted to pay for 60% of it. 

Feds should take over health, purely because they are the only level of government with enough money to pay for it.  I don't think the states are preventing it - they don't want it.

[SurfRail]

Ideally we need a new constitution which will properly allocate more responsibilities to the Commonwealth - or even one where the Commonwealth has plenary legislative power and can do what it likes.

[somebody]

Ideally we need a new constitution which will properly allocate more responsibilities to the Commonwealth - or even one where the Commonwealth has plenary legislative power and can do what it likes.

100% Federal takeover of health would have solved many of the issues.

But the Feds didn't want to do that because it would reduce their ability to control the states through funding.

[somebody]

Agree about the TAFEs.  Most of the other things aren't really huge issues as far as I can see - perhaps Fisheries.

[colinw]

Railway Gazette International -> click here

30 August 2012

AUSTRALIA: Representatives of more than 30 organisations attended the launch of the Transport Reform Network on August 29. TRN is a cross-industry coalition which aims 'to address Australia's looming transport crisis by seeking changes in the scoping, funding and pricing of transport infrastructure'.

Australasian Railway Association CEO Bryan Nye warned that deteriorating transport networks were jeopardising Australia's international competitiveness, adding that 'things need to change, Australians should be calling for better infrastructure.'

Possibilities to be explored include road user charging which could encourage the transfer of freight to rail, and attracting private investment for infrastructure.

'A lot of credible work has been done, both here and overseas, by governments, academics and the private sector on alternative models for financing and funding transport', said TRN Chairman Dennis Cliche. 'What's missing is a public forum where those ideas can be discussed and tested. That's what we want to provide.'

According to Property Council of Australia CEO Peter Verwer, there is a need 'to facilitate a frank conversation about the way transport infrastructure is priced, prioritised and financed in this country based on long-term demand expectations'.

[Jonno]

However, the transport debate is not just about funding.   It is now crystal clear that we cannot afford to keep propping up our current transport networks.  They have bankrupted our country.  The part of the debate that is missing is the value returned from the investment (economically, socially and environmental). 

Whilst a user pays approach will help it does not and cannot fully address the inefficiencies in road transport including law of congesiton, subsidies, trauma, pollution and other externalities.  Our population has shown that it is willing to pay outrageous prices for road access (which all has an economic impact) despite their being far more efficient and sustainable alternatives.  This is why we need National Policies that ensure any transport investment delivers the most value (economically, socially and environmental). 

[#Metro]

It is not just funding! So much money is being sunk into CONCRETE monuments only to run ABYSMAL service that is no better, no more frequent and no more span than the bus services that they replace!! Aaargh!!

Even if we did have the money, it would just be spent on more concrete.
Brisbane has 85 train stations and 25 busway stations within the BCC boundaries. The city of Toronto which is 4x the size of Brisbane has just 69 stations and 4 lines. The current system isn't being used properly.

BUS LANES so cheap, why aren't there more of them?!
TRAFFIC LIGHT PRIORITY, again, dirt cheap!
HIGH FREQUENCY CFN - OMG even the basic network is not up and running - fraction of the cost of heavy infrastructure upgrade, much faster to do as well
ALL DOOR BUS BOARDING - dirt cheap!
BOTTLENECK FIXES - not as cheap, but still cheaper than brand new from scratch

[ozbob]

"A frequent (public transport) grid is the ultimate in versatility, equity and freedom."

http://www.humantransit.org/2012/08/portland-the-grid-is-30-thank-a-planner.html

[Jonno]

However, the transport debate is not just about funding.   It is now crystal clear that we cannot afford to keep propping up our current transport networks.  They have bankrupted our country.  The part of the debate that is missing is the value returned from the investment (economically, socially and environmental). 

Whilst a user pays approach will help it does not and cannot fully address the inefficiencies in road transport including law of congesiton, subsidies, trauma, pollution and other externalities.  Our population has shown that it is willing to pay outrageous prices for road access (which all has an economic impact) despite their being far more efficient and sustainable alternatives.  This is why we need National Policies that ensure any transport investment delivers the most value (economically, socially and environmental).

70% subsidy, down size of the network would only assume near double the size of the current actual subsidy cost. Even doubling frequency in off-peak would potentially increase the cost of the subsidy unless the result saw revenues exceed the extra running cost (questionable). So the PT system we have and rolling out is not what we need, its about what we can afford.

Some call for a congestion tax. I'm not sure this is the answer, although I agree with major road projects being hit with a toll to pay the cost of the project, but removed when paid off. The congestion tax works better on larger more dense London, Singapore type cites where PT alts also exist.

The cost of building and running HR in Brisbane needs to be reduced if its going to be a vilable alt. Currently a congestion tax simply forces cars to underwrite a high cost PT network.

I think you are looking at the benefits/revenue side too narrowly. Need to include law of congesiton, subsidies, trauma, pollution and other externalities. Road gets same subsidy as PT, are very inefficient and just keep growing congestion.   Cost to run PT should/would be lower but that will come with volume, priority, attention, benchmarking, less political interference.

The current transporet network has failed continuing to do the same is Not an Option!