Deciding infrastructure priorities… 8th BITRE Transport Colloquium, “Australian Transport: Building Capacity and Competitiveness” Canberra 18 June 2008 Prof E W (Bill) Russell Deputy Director, Australasian Centre for the Governance and Management of Urban Transport, (GAMUT) University of Melbourne
19
Embed
Deciding infrastructure priorities… 8th BITRE Transport Colloquium, “Australian Transport: Building Capacity and Competitiveness” Canberra 18 June 2008.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Deciding infrastructure priorities…8th BITRE Transport Colloquium, “Australian Transport: Building Capacity and Competitiveness”Canberra 18 June 2008
Prof E W (Bill) RussellDeputy Director,Australasian Centre for the Governance and Management of Urban Transport,(GAMUT) University of Melbourne
The Scene…
Consensus on the need for accelerated infrastructure investment
$93 billion shortfall according to IPA Plus $14 billion needed in local government New Minister for Infrastructure New body “Infrastructure Australia” Thematic reviews by Ministers under NTP $20bn Funding in Building Australia Fund “The return of the Commonwealth to the cities” and
Major Cities Unit States’ PPP based infrastructure programs squeezed by
rising risk premiums
So how do we now choose?“There’s small choice in rotten apples” - Shakespeare
Technical assessment?Political bargaining by marginal seats?A numbers game?Freight routes or urban corridors?Sydney or the bush?An orderly market or a bazaar?A Mandarinate or an open process?
Process Challenges“Opinions are formed in a process of open discussion” – Hannah Arendt
Good GovernanceTransparencyConsistencyAccountabilityThe Analytical Comparison of AlternativesParticipation
Outcome Challenges“Results are what you expect, and consequences are what you get” – Ladies Home Journal
Good Economic ManagementNational FocusRising above modal or territorial loyaltySustainability andContribution to economic growth and
productivity
Weaknesses of the Old Model“Secrecy is the badge of fraud” – Judge Sir John Chadwick
Not TransparentAggregation of state wish listsLittle funding of rail, or port access and
no funding of ports, urban issues or public transport
Scope for political cherry pickingAppraisal criteria uncertainSustainability void
Outcomes of Old Model
BottlenecksCongestionPublic transport stagnation/poor
greenhouse adaptationKiller highway sectionsModal bias leading to over emphasis on
Up to 30 ships waiting at Dalrymple Bay – 25-30 days wait
Long delays at Port of Newcastle and in Hunter coal chain infrastructure
Decline in Australia’s share of international coal trade from 25 to 20%
Impact on company profitsSignificant demurrage costs
Bottleneck Quicklist
Dalrymple BayPort of NewcastleHunter Valley Coal ChainRail/road links to Port BotanyDitto Port of Melb, Webb Dock Interstate rail Syd-Bris; Syd-AlburyRail route in Adelaide HillsMoving grain harvest
Congestion
Question: Since one train can replace a 5km line of cars, wouldn’t investment in additional trains reduce congestion and provide extra capacity for road freight to flow?
(10 new trains = 50 km of freeway lane)
Killer Highways – Pacific Highway Hexham to Qld Border 2007:-
911 Crashes149 Heavy Vehicle crashesAv Cost Heavy Vehicle Crash - $200KTotal Cost HV Crashes 2008 - $29.8MCumulative fatalities 7236% of fatality accidents involved heavy
trucksAnnual road trauma cost, Australia, $17bn
Postponing Infrastructure Australia investment in public transport “to the distant future”? Difficulties are acknowledged:
Lack of Commonwealth experience NSW management problems Vic privatisation confuses public/private interests Qld municipal involvement
But PT is critical urban infrastructure PT met and unmet demand booming due to oil price PT development a key path to < transport sustainability PT a key “social inclusion” issue Some states need massive investments Significant congestion benefit from PT investment
Some ideas as to process…
Project generation shouldn’t be a monopoly A consistent technical appraisal process A shopping list from Infrastructure Australia
based on strategic objectives Parliamentary scrutiny of large and/or
contentious projects High level endorsement of the preferred
program Post implementation review of what is done
Project Generation“Lack of an agenda is the greatest power” - Guardini
State road agencies have set the agenda of project generation in the past
Infrastructure investment houses have played a role
Both these should continue but add…States should seek urban policy, public
transport and regional policy inputsLocal government inputs via COALG & IAPrivate sector provider & peak group inputsCommunity group inputs
Technical Appraisal“What interested me was not news, but appraisal” – John Gunther
Projects generated would then be appraised via
ATC National Guidelines for Transport System management
A sustainability testA consistent application of the framework
across the projects generatedA website transparently listing proposals
and summary technical assessments
How Infrastructure Australia can add value
Through its infrastructure audit, establishing base data
Through its representative composition, allowing priorities to be argued
Through establishing clear strategic objectives, placing proposals in a national context
By better packaging decision options for ATC, COAG and Cabinet.
Parliamentary Scrutiny
Should apply to large projects (eg $100M+)
Should apply where significant public and private interests are intertwined
National and state processes should be complementary
Can provide a basis for better governance through consultation with community and business
Post Implementation Review“Evaluation is the most valuable of all we treasure” - Nietzsche
Major projects should be reviewed after completion
Results should be available in a transparent lessons learned data base.
Conclusion
New process for accelerated infrastructure provision to be welcomed
Combination of IA audit, thematic review and COAG oversight is excellent
Exclusion of public transport should be reconsidered
Parliamentary scrutiny needed of large projects & those where public/private interests intertwine
Post implementation review and lessons learned data base desirable