Australia Infrastructure including IA discussion

[ozbob]

Cleveland line duplication now off IA priority list

https://t.co/2xPPPGHv9l ping @Robert_Dow

[ozbob]

Anthony Albanese MP

Address to the Australian Logistics Council – "Infrastructure – Australia at the cross roads"

> http://anthonyalbanese.com.au/address-to-the-australian-logistics-council-infrastructure-australia-at-the-cross-roads

[ozbob]

Sydney Morning Herald --> City slicker Malcolm Turnbull hitches a ride on the urban express

[ozbob]

Sydney Morning Herald --> We need to cut wasteful spending on infrastructure

[ozbob]

Sydney Morning Herald --> Highway robbery: Taxpayer money flows to transport projects in marginal seats

[#Metro]

Nothing new here. Funds under political control will go to marginal seats where possible to maximise votes.

On the other hand, if a seat is marginal then the people there are probably unhappy with both sides so it perhaps is some form of redress...

maybe...

[ozbob]

The Conversation --> Metropolitan governance is the missing link in Australia's reform agenda

[ozbob]

Twitter

Adam Carey ‏@adamlcarey 7h

Here's the Grattan Institute report on 10 years of wasted spending on roads http://grattan.edu.au/report/roads-to-riches/ ...

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Turnbull demands control over key infrastructure decisions

[Stillwater]

This article contains a message for the Queensland Government and its SHOW US THE MONEY mentality when it comes to the feds:

"Major Projects Minister Paul Fletcher slammed the Andrews government for "treating the Commonwealth as an automatic teller machine, expecting it to spit out cash". He said it was the intent of the Turnbull government to "take a more active role in infrastructure policy", warning the states needed to improve their performance." 

States are not going to get any money for projects unless they prepare a robust business case.  It is not helpful to start shouting SHOW US THE MONEY the day you lodge the business case with Canberra.  Solid analysis of the business case could take a good six months.  Queensland can't be tardy in preparing business cases for major projects and expect a rubber stamp approval.  The states are in a competitive bidding process.  There should be no expectation that each state is entitled to a percentage share of the overall infrastructure funding pool.

[ozbob]

[ozbob]

Turnbull might say he loves PT for the cameras, but his $1.5 billion splurge on Victorian infrastructure projects includes less than 1% for public transport.

Make sure he knows you're ‪#‎stillwaiting‬: http://www.stillwaiting.com.au

>> https://www.facebook.com/Janet.Rice.Greens/videos/1060827153978690/

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Government's infrastructure carve-up is plagued by hypocrisy and politics

[ozbob]

Victoria Walks --> Should health be included in transport planning?

[ozbob]

The Conversation via Grattan Institute --> How to make cities work better – here's what the government needs to do

How to make cities work better – here's what the government needs to do

by Marion Terrill

Published at The Conversation,  Thursday 14 July.

Every decade or two, Australia focuses on cities. Leading into the election, the government talked of smart cities, innovative cities, productive cities. But somehow there's been no trade-off of costs and benefits – just more expensive infrastructure promised in the cities and in the regions too.

What's missing is an explanation of how to support productivity in cities – to help regional people as much as city dwellers themselves. Will it be different this time?

Australia's prosperity depends on managing cities well. Contrary to our myths about rugged outback pioneers, Australia is highly urbanised, with the biggest share of population in its two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne, of any developed nation.

This is a good thing for our prosperity. Cities have more productivity growth than towns, and bigger cities more than smaller ones. When a city doubles in size, wages, output and innovation per capita more than double. All the benefits of human interaction play out in a more productive and dynamic economy.

But as cities grow, the negative impacts of interaction grow too. These include more pollution and more congestion per person. Governments need to make sure the positive impacts of cities outweigh the negatives.

Well-connected cities work best

Cities work best when they actually operate as cities – with all the choice of jobs and employers and goods and services that are available as long as the city is not simply a series of disconnected villages.

The trend to greater urbanisation is set to continue. Even during the mining boom, most economic activity occurred in Australian capital cities, as the chart below shows.



Not only are most existing jobs in the cities, so too are most new jobs. More than one-quarter of all jobs are located within five kilometres of the CBDs of the major capital cities. Around 40% are within ten kilometres.

At the same time, people who live in growing cities face real pressures. While job growth is strongest in the CBD, most housing growth occurs on the outer fringes.

This mismatch between where the people are and where the jobs are makes us all less prosperous if people decide it's too hard to commute to work, or commute to a job that best suits their skills, and instead settle for something that they're less suited to, or work less, or don't work at all.

Better use of the infrastructure dollar

Governments try periodically to make cities easier to get around, generally by announcing major new transport infrastructure. The growth in the big capital cities has led many people to feel that the transport infrastructure we have is no longer up to the job, and will only struggle more over time.

So the government made plenty of transport infrastructure promises in the election campaign – A$5.4 billion worth.

Yet, of this, only $800 million was for projects that Infrastructure Australia had fully assessed as nationally significant and worth doing. One-quarter was for projects that sit nowhere on Infrastructure Australia's list – because they're not nationally significant, because they're not worth doing, or because nobody has even asked Infrastructure Australia whether they justify public money.

With the federal budget under pressure, a more disciplined approach to investment is vital. The Commonwealth should defer funding for any project until Infrastructure Australia has assessed it as nationally significant and worth doing.

In other words, a large number of campaign promises to fund specific projects should be deferred. If these promises are allowed to override disciplined project assessment – as they have over the last decade – then vested local interests override the public interest.

To institutionalise this approach, the National Land Transport Act and the Federal Financial Relations Act should be amended so that the minister may commit public money only after an independent evaluation of the project and the business case (by Infrastructure Australia, for example) has been tabled in parliament.

A cost-effective alternative to building roads

Before building more roads, which will only fill up soon with more cars, there is unexplored potential to improve the use of what already exists.

The existing road network could work much harder for us. Within cities, every driver who sets out onto a congested road imposes costs on all the other drivers through his or her contribution to overall congestion.

Over and above the financial costs of buying a car and filling up with fuel, congestion represents a further cost to our time and convenience. This cost is real, and it's larger than it needs to be.

Governments could consider changing this from a time cost to a money cost. In other words, instead of sitting in traffic jams, people could pay to drive on freer-flowing roads. The choices we would face would be: pay to use key roads at peak hour; take our trip at another time; take a different route; or avoid the trip altogether. Some people will take one option; others will take another.

A small change in the number of cars on a stretch of road can make a big change to congestion on that road. The NRMA estimates that when traffic volume drops by 5%, speeds increase by 50%.

The federal government could encourage states to take two small preliminary steps. First, it could require states to include an in-principle application of road pricing on any new urban transport proposal seeking Commonwealth funding. Second, it could provide policy support and funding to any state willing to trial congestion pricing in its capital cities.

With these small and reversible steps, city dwellers and governments could start to find out whether the benefits of congestion charging are worth it. We may find, as the designer of the highly successful Stockholm congestion charge said:

If you do it right, people will actually embrace the change, and if you do it right, people will actually even like it.

[ozbob]

Huffington Post --> Australia Needs To Go To Town On Cities Policy

[#Metro]

I think cities should be influenced at the local level most and then at the state level also.

The reason why the Feds have their finger in the pie is because of the State-Fed financial imbalance.

Restructuring the tax system is needed.  Money raised by states are spent by states and local gov't.

This promotes efficiency as organisations are more careful with their own money than someone else's. '

It's also accountable - make a mistake and you can be voted out.

[SurfRail]

That's hardly a be-all and end-all solution.  Federal / national government funds are deployed into urban public transport all over the planet, and even by supra-national organisations like the EU.  They don't suffer from the same levels of incompetence (generally).

[#Metro]

That's hardly a be-all and end-all solution.  Federal / national government funds are deployed into urban public transport all over the planet, and even by supra-national organisations like the EU.  They don't suffer from the same levels of incompetence (generally).

The Federal Government is absolutely egrossed in roads.

This goes back decades. I don't blame them because they have to focus on a national grid of roads and most places outside cities won't support PT. Pacific Motorway - I has been in a state of continuous upgrade for as long as I can remember. Same thing about the Ipswich Motorway etc.

[ozbob]

Interesting read - 'Australia needs to follow the US in funding urban #rail projects' https://t.co/cVDSiJt0DK

— AusRAIL (@AusRAIL) September 2, 2016

[#Metro]

It is not clear to me how those proponents are going to capture the benefits of their line. Property development perhaps at stations, but those will be few and far between if the service is fast (remember fast = few stations).

This might come as a shock, but if the privates do it it will be inefficient at capturing the benefits that spill over to neighbouring properties. This isn't necessarily fatal - i.e. radio stations broadcasting programs cannot force everyone who listens to pay the radio station for the programming, the same is true for free-to-air TV - however it would be more efficient if gov't was involved.

Council rates (based on land tax) and state government land taxes capture the uplift that infrastructure projects bring, even if those benefits are dispersed and are on private property surrounding the station. There is a case for some gov't contribution here, even if private.

We should also be careful - infrastructure is incredibly expensive to construct and maintain. We are talking $100s of millions per kilometre. The track record with private projects that involve and infrastructure component are not good, particularly in Queensland - Airtrain (almost went bankrupt, took ages to build service levels up to basic standard), AirportLink and Clem7 tunnel were all financial flops.

One place where this could be applied is the Sunshine Coast, where there are very large tracts of land that could be developed with this model. However, it would require major densification - allowing buildings a few storeys high rather than single family homes.

[ozbob]

http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/projects/infrastructure-priority-list.aspx

Infrastructure Priority List

The Infrastructure Priority List is a prioritised list of nationally significant investments. It provides decision makers with advice and guidance on specific infrastructure investments that will underpin Australia's continued prosperity.

The investments outlined in the list undergo a rigorous prioritisation process and are independently assessed by Infrastructure Australia's Board. Information on the prioritisation process is available.

The Infrastructure Priority List is updated regularly and is made up of two broad groups:

    Projects are potential infrastructure solutions for which a full business case has been completed by the proponent and positively assessed by the Infrastructure Australia Board.

    Initiatives are potential infrastructure solutions for which a business case has not yet been completed. Initiatives are identified through a collaborative process between nominators and Infrastructure Australia Board, using Infrastructure Australia Board's Audit and other data as evidence.


>> CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITY LIST PDF: 602 KB

Cross River Rail languishes as a ' high priority initiative '  doesn't even make project grade ..  hey ho ...

At least the business case is being assessed.

[ozbob]

[ozbob]

Rail Express --> Trio of rail projects added to Infrastructure Australia priority list

Perth's airport rail line, the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal, and the Adelaide-Tarcoola Rail Upgrade have all been added to Infrastructure Australia's Priority List.

IA's Infrastructure Priority List is updated by the body to identify "nationally significant projects and initiatives" in each state and territory.

IA chief executive Philip Davies said on Friday the IA board had positively assessed business cases for the three rail project, as well as Victoria's M80 Ring Road Upgrade project.

"Adding these projects to our Infrastructure Priority List demonstrates that they are sound investments that have the potential to address some of the nation's key infrastructure challenges, such as urban congestion and the need to improve national freight connectivity," Davies said.

"The Perth—Forrestfield Airport Rail Link will address the lack of public transport access to the eastern region of Perth and Perth Airport, and reduce road congestion in the city's east," Davies explained.

"Improving public transport access to Perth Airport will help manage ongoing growth, as passenger numbers double over the next 20 years."

Regarding the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal, he said: "Development of an Intermodal Terminal at Moorebank in Sydney's south-west is part of a long-term strategy to increase the carriage of freight by rail.

"The updated business case shows this project will provide a significant boost to Sydney's intermodal terminal capacity, allowing for much more freight to be transported to and from Port Botany by rail."

Davies also said the Adelaide-Tarcoola Rail Upgrade would support projected growth in national freight volumes by improving capacity on the line between Adelaide and Perth.

"Investment in Australia's national freight network is vitally important if we are to make the most of our population growth and our close proximity to the booming economies of China and South-East Asia," the CEO continued.

"Australian governments should continue to consult the Infrastructure Priority List to progress initiatives such as these that deliver substantial economic benefits and improved outcomes for infrastructure users around the country."

[ozbob]

Sydney Morning Herald --> Infrastructure opportunity knocked – Canberra wasn't home. Still isn't

The commonwealth government started this financial year able to borrow money for 10 years at about 1.8 per cent.

The 10-year bond on Tuesday morning was trading with a yield of about 2.66 per cent. It finished last week at 2.72. Split the difference, round it up and it's costing the government 50 per cent more to borrow money today.


Australia not home when opportunity knocked

Last week Australian government bonds finished 51 per cent dearer than when opportunity was knocking loudest for infrastructure. Michael Pascoe comments.

You could say a wonderful opportunity was missed to borrow very cheaply to invest in infrastructure that would pay for itself several times over.

That sort of borrowing is what financial advisors explain to retail-level customers as "good debt". It's the sort of debt our central bankers have tried to explain to the government as sound economic policy to help Australia realise its potential by improving productivity and our quality of life, paying fat economic dividends for years to come. ...

[ozbob]

Speech to launch response to the Australian Infrastructure Plan - 'Building our future, on good advice'

> http://paulfletcher.com.au/speeches/portfolio-speeches/item/1845-speech-to-launch-response-to-the-australian-infrastructure-plan-building-our-future-on-good-advice.html


It is a pleasure to be here today on the occasion of the release of the Turnbull Government's response to Infrastructure Australia's 15 Year Plan.

A little later this morning, the Prime Minister will deliver his Annual Infrastructure Statement to the Parliament, and as part of that statement he will formally respond to the Infrastructure Australia 15 Year Plan.

This morning's event however is an opportunity to reflect in a little more detail on the work that Infrastructure Australia has done, as well as explain a bit more fully some of our thinking behind the key elements of our response.

Infrastructure Australia does vital work in developing and maintaining the Infrastructure Priority List, which is effectively a central register of potential infrastructure projects which have been assessed as worthy of investment. The Turnbull Government has committed funding towards 14 of the 15 projects on the Infrastructure Priority List.

But another important part of its mandate is to provide independent advice regarding the infrastructure policy challenges and opportunities facing Australia – and to do so with a longer term perspective than may come naturally to politicians caught up in the vagaries of day to day issues.

In the 15 Year Australian Infrastructure Plan, delivered to the government earlier this year, Infrastructure Australia certainly set out a comprehensive agenda of recommendations across a wide range of infrastructure sectors – transport, communications, energy, water and other areas.

There are 78 recommendations relevant to all levels of government – proposing a wide range of reforms to improve the delivery of infrastructure nation-wide. The Turnbull Government's Response reflects our recognition that reforming how we plan, prioritize and pay for infrastructure is critical to sustainable long term productivity growth.

Of the 78 recommendations made in the Plan, the Australian Government is supporting 69 of them.

This demonstrates that the 15 Year Plan will guide key infrastructure policy directions for the Turnbull Government. Many of these recommendations are reflected in reforms we have already commenced, and as I will outline to you this morning, we are now taking steps to implement a number of others.

The Turnbull Government is certainly pleased with the quality and comprehensiveness of the Plan, and we welcome the fact that it contains a range of innovative and in some cases provocative ideas.

While we have not accepted every recommendation, it is of great value to the government that we have an independent body prepared to offer frank and fearless advice - and that has certainly been the case with this plan. It reflects the expertise and broad perspectives of the board – which collectively has extraordinary experience across many aspects of infrastructure – and the skills of the staff. I do want to particularly acknowledge Chairman Mark Birrell and Chief Executive Phil Davies.

The infrastructure policy debate in Australia – as well as debate about specific projects – benefits considerably from the independent, fact-based work of Infrastructure Australia, as well as the analogous bodies which now exist in a number of states, such as Infrastructure NSW, Infrastructure Victoria and Building Queensland. While decision making must properly remain the province of elected parliamentarians, having high quality independent advice which is publicly available clearly informs the quality of the debate and leads to better decisions.

Five key areas of our response

Let me now turn to the government's response to the Australian Infrastructure Plan. We have issued a detailed formal response document, but today there are five key areas of our response which I would like to highlight.

Urban Rail Plans

First, to better understand current and future rail needs, the Australian Government will work with state governments to agree urban rail plans for Australia's five largest cities (including their surrounding regions).

Understanding our growing cities' capacity to move high volumes of people and freight is fundamental to keeping our cities efficient and liveable.

Our population is projected to increase to around 30 million people by 2030 – 7.4 million more than in 2011, and with 75 per cent of this growth projected to occur in our four largest cities.

Given these facts, it's clear we have to plan for growth.

This work will include examining global trends and drivers of urban rail (including technology developments and changing demographic patterns) and linkages between rail and urban planning, and its outcomes will better inform Government investment.

The Turnbull Government certainly recognises that extensive work has been done by a number of state governments on these issues. I could mention for example the Perth Transport Plan, issued earlier this year, and of course there are analogous documents around the country.

The intention here is not to re-invent the wheel, but to build on existing work, and reach an agreed position between the Commonwealth and State Governments regarding the way forward for rail in the five big cities (including their surrounding region.)

This work, which addresses several of the recommendations made by Infrastructure Australia, will provide a strong foundation for future rail investment decisions by all levels of government in Australia, as well as the private sector.

Road Reform

Secondly, we are responding to IA's recommendations regarding heavy vehicle road reform. Federal and State Transport Ministers have endorsed a road map for heavy vehicle road reform, which aims to create a market for the provision and use of heavy vehicle infrastructure. Phase one is already underway, delivering improved transparency around road expenditure, investment and service delivery – through the publication of heavy vehicle infrastructure asset registers and expenditure plans.

However, there is significant room for more reform to provide more efficient and fairer outcomes for both taxpayers and end-users.

The Australian Government will progress next steps for heavy vehicle road reform with states and territories through the development of a forward looking cost base; and a discussion paper to inform consultation on options for an independent price regulator. In advancing this important reform, we will be consulting extensively with the heavy vehicle industry.

The Australian Government agrees with Infrastructure Australia that cost reflective road pricing for light vehicles should be further investigated, which is why the third element of our response relates to IA's recommendation concerning road user charging for light vehicles. We will undertake a Study, led by an eminent Australian, into the potential benefits and impacts of cost reflective pricing for light vehicles on road users.

The study is expected to commence in 2017 and more information, including who will lead the study, its terms of reference, and work programme, will be announced in due course.

I am particularly keen to have a secretariat for the study which includes state and territory officials as well as staff from both the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, and Infrastructure Australia. Pleasingly, as I have discussed this with a range of state and territory Ministers, there has been a positive response.

Let me highlight that we have not accepted IA's recommendation that government should commit to the full implementation of a light vehicle road charging structure in the next ten years. We think the priority is to have a thorough examination of this issue, so we can assess the costs and benefits.

The government would not make any decision to proceed down this path unless it was satisfied that it would deliver better roads and a fairer system. Moreover, it is not just the federal government that needs to be persuaded of the benefits – it is the state and territory governments as well.

As I have said on many occasions, if we were to move away from the present system under which Australians pay for the use of our roads, towards a system where what we pay is more directly related to the costs of providing the roads we all use, it would be a ten to fifteen-year journey.

Data Collection and Dissemination Plan

The fourth key element of our response will involve a focus on obtaining more and better data in the transport and infrastructure space, through a data collection and dissemination plan.

My Department will work with Data 61, with the ABS and states and territories, end-users and the private sector to make sure our analysis and investment decision-making is underpinned by a robust evidence base.

The Plan will make data publicly available by default (while protecting privacy and commercial interests) to encourage innovation – particularly to improve information for customers and support private investment decisions, by better identifying how well our transport services are performing and where improvements are needed.

As part of the plan we aim to collect and publicly release data on the performance of transport services, including freight and passenger, so that we can target improvements to these essential services.

Freight and supply chain strategy

The final key element of our response is that the Australian Government will develop a long-term national freight and supply strategy for reform and investment. To support this, the Government will undertake an independent inquiry to analyse how best to lift the productivity and efficiency of Australia's freight and supply chain infrastructure.

The inquiry will focus on major container ports, airports and intermodal terminals. It will examine regulatory and investment barriers, as well as opportunities to improve capacity (and reduce the cost of transporting goods) through these areas.

This builds on the Government's ongoing investment in improving Australia's freight and supply chain infrastructure. For example, the Australian Government has now committed a total of $893.7 million to the Inland Rail project, which will reduce freight transit times between Brisbane and Melbourne by up to ten hours. We are also progressing the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal in Sydney which, when fully developed, is expected to be the largest warehouse and rail terminal precinct in Australia.

Funding and Financing

Let me also comment on the recommendations in the plan concerning funding and financing of infrastructure.

Earlier this year the Government adopted a set of Principles for Innovative Financing. The Principles, released in February 2016, set out expectations for our significant infrastructure investment.

Last week I launched a discussion paper on Using Value Capture to Help Deliver Major Land Transport Infrastructure, and sought feedback from industry and other stakeholders on the ideas set out in the paper.

As the Prime Minister has said many times, the Commonwealth is no longer an ATM, simply handing over grants to state and territory governments for infrastructure with little involvement in how the money is spent. We are determined to get maximum value for every taxpayer dollar we invest, and we will have a say in where and how Commonwealth taxpayers' funds are invested.

Conclusion

Let me conclude, then, by saying that the Turnbull Government recognises that robust, well targeted investment in major public infrastructure is critical to our country's long term productivity, and our comprehensive response to the Australian Infrastructure Plan sets out a clear path forward.

Although the response covers communications, energy, water and transport infrastructure, my remarks today have focused largely on transport – where there are significant productivity gains to be made.

In recognition of this, the Australian Government is investing a record $50 billion in land transport infrastructure that is changing and saving lives. Across all infrastructure areas, including the NBN, water infrastructure, regional grants funds and other major project funding our investment totals $80 billion.

I believe our approach is consistent with Infrastructure Australia's advice.

Australia is enjoying its 26th year of economic expansion, amidst challenging world circumstances. Our decisions on the delivery of key infrastructure can contribute significantly to economic efficiency and growth.

But our success as a nation depends on good advice to inform good decisions.

In the Australian Infrastructure Plan, and in our formal response, I believe we have both.

Thank you.

[ozbob]

The PM's infrastructure statement is stretching the truth on public transport. But all it delivers is roads, roads and more roads. #auspol pic.twitter.com/RsBaS1lSPd

— Janet Rice🔴⚪️🔵🐶 (@janet_rice) November 24, 2016

[ozbob]

The Huffington Post --> The Government Must Do More Than Just Talk About Infrastructure

Anthony Albanese
Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Tourism and Cities

They have to actually invest.

When governments are seeking to lift economic growth, one means at their disposal is to invest in infrastructure. If they choose the right projects, they can have an immediate impact on job creation and economic activity. In the longer term, the right railways, roads and port projects boost productivity, reducing costs for business and setting the scene for future waves of economic growth.

That's why there is increasing public pressure on the Turnbull Government to increase its investment in Nation Building -- pressure that has increased since last week's National Accounts showed that the economy contracted in the September quarter and warned that: "Public capital expenditure detracted 0.5 percentage points from growth as it declined from elevated levels in the June quarter''.

Experts such as Reserve Bank chairman Philip Lowe and his predecessor Glenn Stevens, as well as state premiers, business people and senior economists, have all suggested the Government lift its infrastructure investment to boost economic activity. Yet last week at the Council of Australian Governments meeting, Malcolm Turnbull swept away such appeals.

This follows an election campaign where the Turnbull Government failed to commit to any major new infrastructure projects but preferred local road projects which would normally be delivered by state governments or even local government.

Mr Turnbull should think again.

To lift infrastructure investment, Mr Turnbull could start to make a real difference if he simply delivered his own Budget.

    That is $3 billion promised which, had it been actually delivered, would be driving economic activity right now, right around the nation.

In its 2014 Budget, the Coalition committed to an infrastructure program that it said would include $8 billion in investment in 2015-16. But the Treasury's Final Budget Outcome document for 2015-16 shows the Turnbull Government invested only $5.5 billion in that period. That's an underspend of $2.5 billion.

Indeed, the underspend was more like $3 billion, because the Government included in its figures a $490 million payment to the Western Australian Government as GST compensation. So that is $3 billion promised which, had it been actually delivered, would be driving economic activity right now, right around the nation.

It would be supporting jobs in construction and engineering. It would be providing business for suppliers of concrete, steel and other products. It would be facilitating the training of apprentices. And remember, this is not new money. It is money that has already been budgeted.

This underspending is not a function of the rephasing of projects from one financial year to another due to incidental delays. The 2015-16 underspend followed a $1 billion underspend the previous year.

What is happening here is that, for a range of reasons, the Government has been unable to actually invest the money it has already put aside. Those reasons include the Government's 2013 decision to scrap billions of dollars of investment in public transport projects that were ready to go and divert the money to toll road projects that were not ready to go. Had the government proceeded with those projects they would be underway now, supporting jobs and growth.

    Governments don't create jobs and growth simply by talking about infrastructure. They have to actually invest.

Instead, most of the Coalition's favoured toll road projects have failed to get off the drawing board and it has fallen far short of its budget on investment in ongoing major projects such as the Bruce and Pacific Highway upgrades. Reduced activity equals reduced economic growth.

Major projects such as the Melbourne Metro, Brisbane's Cross River Rail project, Melbourne's M80 project, Adelaide's light rail and Perth's public transport network are ready for more investment.

The work of Infrastructure Australia has meant that there are projects which have been recommended and positively assessed that are ready to go. But there is also some low-hanging fruit that it is incomprehensible has not been funded by the Government.

For example, a $13 million investment on the Glendale Interchange in the Hunter region, which I visited last week, would be the catalyst for 10,000 jobs and more than $1 billion of private sector investment. It has been identified as the Hunter region's most important project driving investment in the residential, commercial and retail sectors.

And yet the Government has failed to grasp this opportunity.

Mr Turnbull should immediately task his various ministers responsible for infrastructure investment with initiating talks with the states over how it can deliver its budgeted investment in the national interest. And it anyone worries that the money might go to the wrong projects, they shouldn't.

The former Labor Government created Infrastructure Australia to examine and assess the value for money of major infrastructure proposals. The Coalition has supported the Infrastructure Australia model.

Governments don't create jobs and growth simply by talking about infrastructure. They have to actually invest.

" ... Governments don't create jobs and growth simply by talking about infrastructure. They have to actually invest."

^ Hey Albo, tell that to the Queensland mob hey?

[Stillwater]

Go Albo!

Message for Mr Turnbull: 

Look carefully at promises from the Queensland Government that it has projects 'ready to go'.  For a project to be 'ready to go', a business case must be prepared and the state government must have its share of the cost of the project (50% or 20% usually) already banked, or the finance ready to borrow, the construction plans and pre-feasibility completed. 

Normally, Queensland's concept of 'ready to go' is the SHOW US THE MONEY model -- give us a heap of federal money (it may be sufficient, we don't know, for the project is without a completed business case and dubious BCR).  Once we get the money, we have an 'oh crap' moment (something is expected of us, gee!) and set about all the preliminaries, with construction to start in five years time.  At that point, we realise that the money we asked for (and got) will do only half of the job -- then we rescope and rescale the project, or build only half, only to play the SHOW US THE MONEY game for the remainder of the money required.

Oh, and Queensland is 'special' -- big state, decentralised state, poorly-developed infrastructure to exploit resources etc.

And, when we get some money from the feds, we spend it on stadiums with negative BCRs.  Meanwhile, to give the impression that something is happening, we set a group of planners to task redesigning CRR, or preparing yet another business case for the SCL duplication.

[ozbob]

http://paulfletcher.com.au/media-centre/media-releases/item/1871-major-transport-projects-added-to-infrastructure-priority-list.html
Paul Fletcher MP

Major transport projects added to infrastructure priority list
Media Releases Friday, 20 January 2017

The nation's independent infrastructure advisor Infrastructure Australia has today added three major projects to its Infrastructure Priority List.

Minister for Urban Infrastructure Paul Fletcher said Infrastructure Australia had completed its assessments of the business cases for the Murray Basin Rail and Bringelly Road Stage 2 Projects, and the Melbourne Metro Project.

"The Murray Basin Rail Project and Bringelly Road Upgrade Stage 2 are now regarded as Priority Projects by Infrastructure Australia, and the Melbourne Metro a High Priority Project," said Minister Fletcher.

"The Australian Government has committed $220 million to the Murray Basin Rail Project which will give farmers from the region access to Victoria's ports in a more efficient and cost competitive way.

"The Murray Basin Rail Project will help address capacity constraints on the existing freight rail network, which includes standardising rail gauges along the route, as well as increasing axle loadings to 21 tonnes to allow trains to run at full capacity.

"In addition, we are also delivering major upgrades through the $3.6 billion Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan including the $509 million Bringelly Road upgrade. The Australian Government has committed $407 million to this upgrade, which is being delivered in two stages.

The Australian Government welcomes the Victorian Government's commitment to fully fund the Melbourne Metro project. The inclusion of this project on the Infrastructure Priority List demonstrates the important work undertaken by Infrastructure Australia in identifying and assessing priorities that are capable of being funded independently of the federal Government.

For more information on the Infrastructure Priority List, the assessment process, and to find the three business case assessments, visit http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/

[ozbob]

Infrastructure Priority List

20 Jan 2017

> http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/projects/files/IPL_170120.pdf  External

CRR is still being assessed - only a '  high priority initiative  '  again left in the dust ....

[ozbob]

Citylab --> Public Transit Is Worth Way More to a City Than You Might Think

Planning scholar Daniel Chatman of the University of California at Berkeley has been thinking a lot lately about "agglomeration." Don't let the technical word throw you. All it really means is more people in the same place. As more people collect in a city center, more jobs cluster there too, boosting both wages and economic productivity over time. And the key to it all, he believes, may be public transportation.

"To me it's fascinating," says Chatman. "It's all about how people interact with each other. This is what could be happening by virtue of this densification near transit stops, which could happen from investments that draw people to use transit."

In a new paper set for publication in Urban Studies, Chatman and fellow planner Robert Noland of Rutgers University use concrete numbers to make the case that transit produces agglomeration. They report that this hidden economic value of transit could be worth anywhere from $1.5 million to $1.8 billion a year, depending on the size of the city. And the bigger the city, they find, the bigger the agglomeration benefit of expanding transit.
The hidden economic value of transit could be worth anywhere from $1.5 million to $1.8 billion a year

Simply put, city officials now have a much stronger argument for using taxpayer money to improve their public transportation service.

"These results could be dropped directly into a cost-benefit analysis," says Chatman. "It would show a higher benefits-cost ratio for rail investments, particularly rail investments in large cities with existing transit networks."

Let's step back a moment and look at agglomeration more closely. One of the potential benefits of having more people in an area is that you have a wider labor force. That, in turn, means a better chance of matching the needs of a job with the skills of a worker — and, of course, making this match more quickly. Another benefit could be information exchange. As casual encounters among skilled laborers increase, say in the shops and on the sidewalks that crop up near transit hubs, so too does innovation.

Any transportation mode that brings people to a certain place could promote agglomeration, but public transit makes it especially possible because it moves so many people within such a confined space. If workers can only get to a budding job center by car, for instance, eventually traffic will become so bad as to hinder growth. But if transit is also established in the same job center, then far more people will be able to access the area, and clustering there can advance accordingly.

"Whatever does happen in response to a transit investment is going to be concentrated," says Chatman. "You're going to have a different kind of urban form that springs up due to transit than due to the auto."

But with so many variables in play — from job density to population growth to transit development — studying agglomeration has been extremely difficult. So Chatman and Noland ran a number of statistical models that took into account all these factors, as well as economic productivity measures like average wage, for more than 300 metropolitan areas across the United States. ("It really is a new kind of thing we did here," says Chatman.) The numbers were so complex that many of the models failed to pass statistical muster.

Those that did revealed a pretty clear line from transit expansion to economic growth via agglomeration.

Every time a metro area added about 4 seats to rails and buses per 1,000 residents, the central city ended up with 320 more employees per square mile — an increase of 19 percent. Adding 85 rail miles delivered a 7 percent increase. A 10 percent expansion in transit service (by adding either rail and bus seats or rail miles) produced a wage increase between $53 and $194 per worker per year in the city center. The gross metropolitan product rose between 1 and 2 percent, too.

On average, across all the metro areas in the study, expanding transit service produced an economic benefit via agglomeration of roughly $45 million a year — with that figure ranging between $1.5 million and $1.8 billion based on the size of the city. Big cities stand to benefit more simply because they have more people sharing the transit infrastructure. They also tend to have more of the traffic that cripples agglomeration in the absence of transit.

"As to how big it is," says Chatman of this hidden economic benefit, "it's most likely to be large in places that have congested road conditions, transit networks that are at capacity — those kinds of places — and probably less in smaller cities without very much road congestion."

Chatman stresses that because his method is so new, the results must be replicated before they're accepted. He also knows that some people will question the causality of the data: How can the researchers know, for instance, that transit alone is responsible for agglomeration? In response, Chatman points to the controls he and Noland installed in their statistical models — and to the fact that he's been critical of rail as an economic investment strategy in the past.

"Put it this way: I'm a skeptic on this stuff, and I was surprised to see these results so robust," he says.

If the findings do hold true, they mean that cities and transit agencies are underestimating the true benefits of public transportation. From there it's reasonable to expect all cities — though especially big ones — to base future requests for transit funding on the idea that agglomeration leads to economic productivity. If showing that system expansion leads to more riders and less congestion is good, and showing that it reduces pollution and improves public safety is great, then showing in big numbers how much economic growth will occur should be gold.

"This is the first U.S. work, so we'll see what happens, but I imagine you're going to see this coming up in people's [grant] applications, from the big cities," says Chatman. "It's in those big cities that you'd see benefits, and that those would potentially make it more likely that you'd make a decision to make an investment there."

[ozbob]

Australia's 100 most important infrastructure projects https://t.co/qUjgvx5dUS

— Alan Davies (@MelbUrbanist) February 24, 2017

Cross River Rail is not in the race - still languishing at ' High Priority Initiatives ' ...  hey ho ..

http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/Infrastructure-Priority-List.aspx

The Infrastructure Priority List, Project and Initiative Summaries

>> http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/files/Australian-Infrastructure-Plan-2017.pdf

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Commonwealth Government funding for Queensland transport infrastructure improves

QUEENSLANDERS are finally getting a fair share of Commonwealth transport funding, with a new report finding a dramatic increase in spending over the past 12 years.

An Infrastructure Association of Queensland draft report has found the Commonwealth funding share for transport infrastructure has increased from a low of 25 per cent in 2005 to almost a 50-50 share with the State Government in 2016-17.

Major road projects have driven the spend, including eight Bruce Highway upgrades, the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing and the Gateway North upgrade.

An analysis by The Courier-Mail of 14 major road projects between now and 2020 has found the Commonwealth is chipping in $5.48 billion for projects valued at $7.53 billion – almost 72 per cent of the total.

RACQ executive general manager Paul Turner said the figures represented long overdue commitments from a federal level to improving Queensland's roads.

"At the time we started receiving funding, the Bruce Highway was the worst and most dangerous piece of highway in the country," he said.

"We were underdone for many years as (federal) funding went to the Pacific and Hume highways in NSW and Victoria.

"Federal funding for the Bruce has made a big difference so that's a big tick to Canberra.

"The state is still contributing but it's fair to say the percentage of federal funding has increased."

The IAQ study said Queensland was becoming "increasingly reliant on the Commonwealth to fund its transport infrastructure".

But Main Roads Minister Mark Bailey said as the most decentralised state Queensland spends more on roads than any other state.

"We continue to invest in roads and transport projects, with almost $20 billion programmed over four years," Mr Bailey said.

Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said the Turnbull Government was committed to Queensland.

Mr Chester said the right transport infrastructure could save lives and support the state's future growth.

[Stillwater]

QUOTE: The IAQ study said Queensland was becoming "increasingly reliant on the Commonwealth to fund its transport infrastructure".

The latest version of CRR, reportedly slices more than $2 billion off its cost.  What was an $8b project is now a $5.4b project.

Remember when, just days before the last federal election, the state ALP government sent a complicated business case to Canberra for IA to assess, and expected an answer within a week or so?  SHOW US THE MONEY was the cry (and still is).

It can be reasonably assumed that had the feds coughed up the money, the state would have no qualms about, in effect, wasting $2.6b of taxpayer funds building the project to the previous design.  Was the plan to, after getting the feds on the hook, announce a revised cut-down version and negotiating a reallocation of the excess to other works, such as the rail extension to Redbank Plains?  Or was the plan to say 'oh, well, we don't need the state to put money in now, because what would have been our contribution is not needed because we have just made a $2.6b saving'?

Now that a $2.6b 'saving' has been identified, will the Queensland Government reduce the amount of money it is seeking from the Commonwealth proportionally?  More likely, it will continue to demand a significant contribution from the feds while 'pocketing' a $2.6b 'windfall' that will reduce its own financial exposure to the CRR construction costs.  Such is creative accounting these days within government.

Cost shifting at its best!  The federal government is chipping in 72 per cent of the cost of 14 major road projects.  Road projects.  Bear in mind that the state government does all the planning for major projects, and, clearly, the skew has been in favour of roads.

Queensland needs to step up the planning and the business cases for more project submissions to IA.  And those business cases need to be realistic and well-costed.  While $2.6b can be touted as an efficiency gain, it also could be seen as an attempt to hoodwink investors as to the true cost -- fudging the books, if you like.

[ozbob]

Today IA is releasing the latest paper in our Reform Series, Improving Public Transport:Customer Focused Franchising https://t.co/CaaUsbNNHQ pic.twitter.com/FtXxGpL7H3

— Infrastructure Aust (@InfraAust) May 25, 2017

[#Metro]

Pity that stating the obvious is so controversial:

Under a franchise agreement, governments are able to hold a private operator to account via an enforceable contract with clear performance targets and penalties for poor service. Domestic and international experience shows that this combination of competition and incentives delivers tangible improvements for customers.

The ' contracts ' TransLink hold with Queensland Rail and Brisbane Transport are unenforceable for the simple reason that the State Government must do business with them no matter what. Even if the performance standards are not met.

This isn't just public sector either - I can see no reasonable justification as to why private for-profit commercial bus businesses have been given monopolies in Queensland under TransLink.

Recommendation 6.14
Governments should adopt a default option of
exposing public transport services to contestable
supply through franchising.

The focus of reform should be to improve
customers' experience by exposing delivery to
contestable supply and selecting the best operator
to provide services. Private operation of public
transport through time limited, exclusive franchises
– where providers compete to deliver services – is
a proven model both in Australia and overseas in
raising service quality and value for money for
customers.

It should be the default option for public
transport provision, with capital city bus and rail
services as immediate candidates for franchising

IA hasn't made a distinction between franchising and contestable contracting. Franchises are where the operator keeps the revenue or a share of the revenue (profit) based on patronage levels - that is something I am very against.

All revenue should go to TransLink and operators should be paid for services that they provide, not passengers transported. That was the key flaw with the Melbourne Model. The current TransLink model where operators are paid for services, not passengers, should be retained because it is proven to work over a long period of time.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

27th May 2017

Comment: Infrastructure Australia public transport franchising report

RAIL Back on Track welcomes Infrastructure Australia's report into franchising public transport.
South-East Queensland already has a number of private operators supplying public transport under TransLink.
Brisbane City Council, for example, directly owns and operates the Brisbane bus fleet. But it also competitively
contracts out the operation of the Brisbane CityCats to the private company TransDev.

Franchise or competitive tender of transport operations, however, has a checkered history here in Australia and elsewhere.

RAIL Back on Track does not yet have an official position on contracting out Queensland Rail or Brisbane Transport's buses.
Our members cover the whole spectrum of opinion - from strongly support to strongly oppose. So we really can't say
much about the merits of competitive contracting in the South East Queensland context it until we see some solid detail.

Our members do have concerns surrounding rail infrastructure maintenance and how to guarantee that rail maintenance is not
skimped so as to generate dividends for shareholders. We also need to know whether private operators would be paid for
passengers carried or services provided. The Melbourne Model, where operators are paid for patronage, collapsed spectacularly
when predicted patronage did not eventuate. How would we avoid a repeat of that?

Our view is that we need a proper authority such as the Public Transport Authority in WA, or the PTV in Victoria, in Queensland
The absence of a strong, dedicated regulator will mean that competitive tendering will likely not work.
Transport and Main Roads/TransLink have failed and now have their hands full trying to sort out the rail fail, and a lot of work needs to be done prior to any commencement in terms of tenders etc.

Melbourne public transport advocate Daniel Bowen's blog on the issue does highlight a number of things that can be done
to make a better network or reduce costs with or without competitive contracting. Moving Queensland Rail towards a driver only operation
through upgraded signalling and station redesign is one such measure. Comprehensively redesigning the Brisbane City Council bus network
would unlock enormous benefits and frequent services. Our members have done much work in this area with our New Bus Network Proposal
http://tiny.cc/newnetwork . Bus network reform in Brisbane is well overdue, but we are yet to see any progress in this area.

Competitive contracting could be useful in holding operators to account by removing them if they do not perform.
To our knowledge, removal or threat of removal of an operator for failing to meet TransLink service standards has never occurred.
It is not clear that there is a mechanism for that to occur under the current monopoly contracting arrangements.

We need to see more detail about any proposal to bring competitive contracting of buses and trains to Queensland before
we form an absolute position on it. In the meantime, we call on the Deputy Premier Jackie Trad to remove all public transport assets and public
transport planning powers from the Department of Transport and Main Roads and place them into a new separate authority, Public Transport
Queensland.

We need to get the basics of good governance and public administration right before we think of anything else.

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

References:

Public transport 'franchising' could fund Cross River Rail: report
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/public-transport-franchising-could-fund-cross-river-rail-report-20170525-gwdf4x.html

Improving Public Transport - Customer Focused Franchising May 2017
http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/files/Customer-Focused-Franchising.pdf

Save money! With privatisation!
https://www.danielbowen.com/2017/05/26/save-money-with-privatisation/

"I had a quick read of the study and I have to say, I found it utterly unconvincing.
The executive summary talks up privatisation, but the study text doesn't really present any compelling arguments for or against it."

[ozbob]

Media: Comment: Infrastructure Australia public transport franchising report
> https://t.co/wfUT24og7v#qldpol #auspol@QLDLabor @LNPQLD pic.twitter.com/vqHGdwX79V

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 26, 2017

[ozbob]

FOE Melbourne
http://www.melbournefoe.org.au/pt_privatisation

Media release

Further privatisation unlikely to save money, benefit environment

Infrastructure Australia has announced that it wants state governments to hand the operation of their public transport systems over to private operators, arguing that they could cut costs and improve service quality by doing so.

Friends of the Earth Australia (FoEA) strongly opposes any move to further privatise public transport systems:

"Infrastructure Australia was designed to be an independent statutory body so as to be able to provide the best possible recommendations to government" said FoEA campaigner Cam Walker. "But further privatisation sounds more like an extension of failed neo-liberal politics and less like sound public policy".

"The privatisation 'experiment' has been a disaster in Victoria. Tram conductors were a classic example of sustainable green employment, yet these positions were quickly axed to boost the profit of the companies who took over running the trams.

The privatisation of Victoria's train and tram didn't even save taxpayers money. Recent improvements in train performance have resulted primarily from taxpayer investment. Equally, Melbourne's private bus network has experienced poor patronage and on-time performance.

"After stationary energy, the transport sector is the largest contributor of greenhouse pollution in Victoria. A well managed public transport network offers the best solution to transport-connected pollution, public health impacts from particulates, and congestion on our roads. But when transport systems are privatised, the profit imperative generally becomes the dominant force in how the system is run. This means that environment, sustainability, and employment often become a second tier concern compared with maximising profits. For these reasons we strongly oppose further privatisation of public transport systems in Australia."