Why Infrastructure Australia won’t fund the NWRL

Infrastructure Australia chief, Michael Deegan, has disappointed the NSW government by not initially offering to fund the NWRL. (Source: LGMA National)

Following the rejection of NSW’s submission to Infrastructure Australia (IA) for funding of the Northwest Rail Link (NWRL), it’s worthwhile looking more closely at the reasons that supported IA’s rejection. Below are some excerpts, along with commentary:

“I acknowledge that the NSW Government has undertaken some good work in developing the proposal for the North West Rail Link. Whilst that work is worthwhile, it has not yet made a compelling case for this project. We have to remember that we are talking about a project estimated to cost $8.5 billion. It is not a small amount of money.” - Michael Deegan, Infrastructure Australia (7 May 2012)

This could be a polite way of saying no, though given the non-political nature of IA, Mr Deegan is probably genuine when he says that he might still be convinced to support this project. This is backed up by his later comments where he explains what NSW has to do in order to convince him.

“The NSW Government submission provided only preliminary economic analysis and that analysis shows that on the Government’s own figures the project is of marginal economic benefit. The submission has left unanswered the question as to how rail network capacity problems from Chatswood into the CBD are to be addressed. There may be interim solutions, for example terminating some trains on the lower north shore, but these have not been presented to us.” - Michael Deegan, Infrastructure Australia (7 May 2012)

Here is where Mr Deegan now delves deeper into the issue raised earlier. The NWRL has problems (primarily that there is only space for 2 trains per hour during the morning peak into the CBD over the Harbour Bridge), and in his views, the NSW Government had not addressed how it plans to deal with them. In other words, there is not yet a plan as to how the NWRL will fit into the larger network.

Will services from the North Shore be reduced in order to fit NWRL trains into the CBD? Will NWRL trains terminate at Chatswood/St Leonards? Will capacity into the CBD be increased, either via a second Harbour Crossing or by a conversion to single deck metro? Realistically, these are the only 4 options on the table, and the NSW government must pick one.

EDIT: It’s been pointed out (correctly) in the comments below that there is a 5th option – send the trains currently going from Hornsby to the City via Macquarie into the city via Strathfield, thus freeing up an additional 4 slots. This presents some additional challenges of congestion between Epping and Strathfield, but on balance is probably still better than not doing it.

I think the reason it has not done so yet is because it is waiting for the Transport Masterplan to be finalised, a process that will take most of the remainder of the year. Given this will be a plan for many decades to come, it’s understandable that they don’t want to rush it. They just better hope that this delay doesn’t jeapordise any potential funding. Either way, the NWRL will be built, and the NSW government is not backing away from that promise.

“At a deeper level, we also have a question about whether this project is obviously the highest priority project in Sydney. With Sydney growing to a population of between 6–7 million in the next 30 years, and much of that growth occurring in western Sydney, we might be better served by a north west link that can build up Parramatta as a second CBD. I stress that I’m not talking about the Parramatta-Epping rail link. That project is not on Infrastructure Australia’s priority list.” – Michael Deegan, Infrastructure Australia (7 May 2012)

Here Mr Deegan shows his political neutrality, pointing out that in his opinion neither the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link (PERL), nor the NWRL are top priorities for Sydney. However it also highlights the absurdity of the Federal Government’s position in refusing to fund an infrastructure project with a low priority (NWRL), yet offering to fund another with an even lower priority (PERL).

“Compared to the level of analysis we have seen from some other governments, on similarly large projects, the analysis to date from the NSW Government on the North West Rail Link is quite limited. Those other submissions have provided detailed economic analysis, rigorous assessment of project risks and complete environmental impact statements. That work has not yet been undertaken for the North West Rail line.” - Michael Deegan, Infrastructure Australia (7 May 2012)

Some more comments that do not bode well for the NSW submission. These comments on the inadequacy of the submission were rejected by NSW Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian, but when it comes to a he says/she says choice between a politician and an apolitical bureaucrat, I tend to err on the view of the bureaucrat.

The high cost of on-street parking

A series called Moving Beyond the Automobile has done a piece on car parking in New York called parking reform. It outlines how cheap (often free) and plentiful on street parking in effect provides a subsidy to car drivers and questions whether there is a better use for the public space currently given away to cars for free. (Props to Reinventing Parking for posting it.)

Ideally, parking would happen off street in parking garages that charge a market rate, with some limited short term on-street parking for car drivers who need to make quick trips. Otherwise, it is normally ridiculious to use such a limited resource (street space) for the indefinite storage of automobiles.

Off The Rails: 4 Corners report on Sydney’s failing rail system

This 4 Corners Report originally aired on the ABC back in 2009 and outlines the failure of the then NSW Labor Government to adequately provide for Sydney’s transport needs. It has dated somewhat (back then the plan was to build a Northwest Metro), but is a great reminder of why Sydney is now so far behind in building the much needed public transport infrastructure it really needs.

The ABC website has additional background information relating to the piece, including the full interview with then Transport Minister David Campbell and Senior Labor powerbroker Eddie Obeid.

Funding for Northwest Rail Link knocked back

Infrastructure Australia (IA), the Federal Government body responsible for handing out Federal Government funding for infrastructure projects, has rejected a submission by the NSW Government to fund the Northwest Rail Link (NWRL). In its response, IA head Michael Deegan argued that the submission was not detailed enough and that the NWRL is not Sydney’s top priority as there is insufficient capacity for trains to enter the CBD via the Harbour Bridge. Mr Deegan says that IA will continue talks with NSW, but that the final decision lies with the federal government.

One of IA’s proposals, to run more buses from the Northwest, was rejected by Premier Barry O’Farrell. Given the lack of capacity for buses in the CBD, it’s understandable why he would take this view. Part of the reason for a NWRL is that buses can only take a certain level of capacity, and that long distance trips into the CBD (as well as to the job rich arc that spans between North Sydney to Macquarie Park) should be done on high capacity rail rather than low capacity buses.

Map of the Northwest Rail Link. Click on image for higher resolution. (Source: www.northwestrail.com.au)

This clash continues the saga between the NSW and Federal governments, which began when the Federal Labor Government promised to pay $2.1bn of the cost to construct the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link (PERL) in its 2007 election and then the NSW Liberal Government (then in opposition) promised to build the NWRL ahead of the PERL in its 2011 election.

Now it seems neither party is willing to budge. The federal government, keen to get its budget back into surplus, is probably quietly happy to let this funding remain in its coffers. Meanwhile, the NSW government appears to be pinning its hopes on a change of Federal Government and that a future Prime Minister Tony Abbott would be more open to providing NSW with access to those funds. Either way, the NWRL looks set to go ahead, so the fight over the $2.1bn is essentially to determine whether or not other infrastructure gets built or not, rather than whether the NWRL will get built.

Probably the only one who is happy about the current impasse is Cr Lorraine Wearne, Lord Mayor of Parramatta City Council. Having seen the writing on the wall for the PERL, her council has been pushing for a light rail network for Parramatta and wants part of the $2.1bn to be earmarked for this project. To this effort, Parramatta is also commissioning a $1m feasibility study into a light rail network centred around Parramatta.

The NSW Government’s response was a cautious maybe, with Acting Premier Andrew Stoner calling the $9.5bn price tag “a heck of a lot of money”, but also saying that “if they are able to convince us, if they are able to convince Infrastructure NSW, we might facilitate it”. This would be consistent with comments by State Treasurer Mike Baird, who said he was looking at opportunities to move government offices to Parramatta.

I have previously raised the option of a circuit breaker (here and here) like this as a way of ending the impasse on this issue, and while I think it’s less likely than more that this will be successful, I do think there is a chance that it might go ahead.

State and federal governments disagree on second Sydney airport

A quarter of a century ago, the federal Labor government decided to build a second airport in Sydney at Badgerys Creek. It spent the next few years acquiring land there. However, the Liberal Part was opposed to the Badgerys Creek location and when the Howard Liberal government was elected in 1996, this policy was scrapped. Later, Labor under Simon Crean also dropped its support for Badgerys Creek in the early 00s. The federal government still owns the land at Badgerys Creek, but both parties officially oppose a new airport there.

Last month, a joint NSW-Federal report was released recommending Badgeries Creek as the preferred site for a second airport in Sydney, with Wilton as the next best option. Instantly, the parties repeated their positions. Federal Transport and Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese of the Labor Party said his preferred location was Wilton. Meanwhile NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell of the Liberal Party said he wanted no new airports in the Sydney basin at all, preferring instead to build a high speed rail link to an upgraded Canberra Airport. Mr O’Farrell’s proposal to use Canberra Airport has been dismissed by Federal Liberal Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey who also wants an airport built at Wilton.

No one wants an airport in their backyard, it’s simple NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard). What is strange is that Mr O’Farrell has adopted a more extreme version of NIMBYism, something fellow Liberal, and Federal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbot called BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone. Every year, more and more people move into areas that could hold a second airport, and the longer the wait before action is taken the larger the voter backlash will be.

The reality is that Sydney’s Kingsford-Smith Airport will reach capacity by 2027 according to the joint report, or 2045 according to the company that operates Kingsford-Smith Airport. The clock is ticking, and inaction is no longer an option.

“If action is not taken quickly, the chance to secure the future of aviation for the Sydney region may be lost altogether…the option of doing nothing is no longer available and the costs of deferring action are unacceptable” – Joint report

Source: Daily Telegraph

Not only that, but it makes economic sense to build a second airport somewhere in Western Sydney to provide jobs both directly and indirectly to a region that will hold half of Sydney’s population in coming decades:

“[turning western Sydney into] one big housing estate with no economic drivers’ [is nonsense]“ – Chris Brown, co-author of the joint report

Lenore Taylor wrote the best piece I’ve read on this issue, for anyone looking for additional reading on it.

My submission to the draft Transport Master Plan

Submissions to the Transport Masterplan were due by midnight tonight.I’ve included my submission to it below. The questions are in bold, with my responses in after that. I got in with an hour to spare. It’s quite long, so if you just want the highlights, read my responses to the second and last questions.

TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES : Are the objectives for future planning for transport in NSW appropriate and comprehensive?

Overall the discussion paper is quite comprehensive, and I’m generally quite happy with the direction that it lays out for transport in NSW.

TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES : Do you have any other objectives to suggest for both public transport and roads?

A number of issues were not raised in the discussion paper (or I could not find them):

1. Congestion charging and uniform tolling. Currently there are countless different tolling systems throughout Sydney, ranging from free to distance based to flat fee to time of day. There is a significant potential to set tolling in such a way as to provide funding for additional transport spending AND as a form of congestion charging to discourage private car use during peak hour.

2. Car share. This has taken off in the inner city parts of Sydney, with some limited expansion into the North Shore and Parramatta. Though it is supported at the local council level, there is huge scope for car share policy to be expanded to the city-wide level in order to encourage take up, and thus discourage car ownership/use.

3. Bike share. As a “last mile” strategy, bike share can greatly expand the catchment area of public transport by allowing commuters to ride a bike after alighting from their public transport vehicle. This is a much better option than encouraging commuters to take their own bike on buses/trains, as this uses up valuable space onboard the vehicles. Helmet laws should be considered, and if any rollout is ever done then it should be done at a large scale. Small scale bike share schemes have been shown to fail due to insufficient coverage (e.g. Melbourne) whereas successful schemes invested in a substantial and wide fleet of bikes (e.g. Paris and London).

SYDNEY TRANSPORT : In solving the transport problems in Sydney, what transport mode should be the first priority for new investment, bearing in mind the need for a socially equitable and environmentally sustainable transport sector?

Transport modes are a transport solution to a transport problem. To pick a mode first is putting the cart before the horse, as it seeks to pick a solution and then go looking for a problem. Ideally we should be highlighting the problems and then selecting the most appropriate solution (and hence transport mode), which will be different depending on the exact problem. In some cases, the solution may be buses, in some cases it may be rail, in some cases it may be a re-organisation or upgrade of existing services.

But the key thing is to work out the problem first, and find a solution second.

SYDNEY TRANSPORT : What do you consider to be the main priorities for investment in Sydney’s transport infrastructure?

Public transport should be a priority. In the last 2 decades, many public transport projects have been deferred or cancelled. Meanwhile, every single new freeway that has been proposed has also been built. Freeways need to go to the bottom of the pile for the next 20 years in order to being public transport infrastructure back to square one.

SYDNEY TRANSPORT : How can the road network be better utilised and enhanced?

Get people out of cars and into public transport or out of the peak and into the off-peak. There is enough existing road capacity out there to transport Sydney’s population without having to build more roads.

There are many roads that are currently used for travelling through, rather than used for arriving at a final destination. For example, many people drive through the CBD without actually stopping there. This sort of traffic belongs on a freeway of some sort. Perversely, there is a freeway that people could take (the Cross City Tunnel), yet people choose not to use it because there is a toll. A logical solution would have been to toll the surface roads via a congestion charge, which would then fund a free CCT journey.

SYDNEY TRANSPORT : What are your priorities for public transport services in terms of frequency, reliability, cleanliness and safety?

Frequency is freedom. I love turn up and go public transport that is frequent enough that I don’t need a timetable. Depending on the context, this may mean 5, 7, 10, 15 or even 20 minute frequencies.

SYDNEY TRANSPORT : What criteria should determine whether light rail or bus transport should be preferred?

Light rail has a few benefits over buses, such as higher capacity, more popular appeal, faster acceleration/deceleration, less noise, certainty, etc. However, many of the benefits normally attributed to light rail, such as exclusive rights of way of better stops/stations, are actually also available to buses and are not technology based. Such things should not be considered when deciding between the two technologies.

SYDNEY TRANSPORT : What are the current barriers to using multiple transport modes to complete a journey? How can the barriers be addressed?

Integrated fares exist with myMulti tickets, but they are limited to weekly tickets and are CBD centric (a daily ticket also exists, but is far too expensive for all but a few users). Additional myMulti tickets should be available, such that Zones 1, 2, 3, 1+2, 2+3 or 1+2+3 are available, for users in outer suburbs who do not commute into the CBD.

Fares should cost the same to get from A to B, regardless of the number of vehicles used to do so. Currently, using 2 vehicles costs more, despite the fact that this is an inconvenience, not a premium service as the cost would suggest.

Resolving this can take either the form of point to point fares (which can be done once Opal is rolled out) or simple zonal fares (as myMulti tickets operate). Either is fine, but whichever option is taken the fare system should be built up from the ground up to be simple. Grandfathering the existing fare structure would complicate things unnecessarily.

SYDNEY TRANSPORT : How can the transport requirements of Sydney Airport and Port Botany be best addressed?

A second airport should be built at Badgerys Creek, where the joint NSW-Federal study into a second airport recommended it be built, in order to relieve the pressure on Kingsford Smith Airport and to provide jobs to Western Sydney, where the majority of the population growth will occur.

SYDNEY TRANSPORT : If there are to be more greenfield land release areas in Sydney, should there be a focus on developing public transport options as part of strategic land use planning for Metropolitan Sydney? How should this policy be given effect?

Future developments should be designed more like Rouse Hill, which has a dense town centre at its core which acts as a transport hub/interchange, rather than Kellyville, which is streets upon streets of houses and little else, forcing residents into their cars as the only transport option. Such a strategy, along with reservations for future rail corridors, allows for buses to serve these new areas until sufficient population/funding is available to extend heavy rail into the area.

Good planning for public transport also increases land value, and accessing some of the increase in the value of the land can help to fund this new transport infrastructure through, for example, additional levies on developers of these greenfield sites.

REGIONAL TRANSPORT : What are the key transport objectives for your region?

Rail lines have been poorly maintained and trains today run no faster than they did for most of the past century. There is little reason why trains in non-urban areas should not be able to go at 160km/hr (the maximum speed of an XPT train). Such an improvement could make living in Wollongong or Newcastle and commuting into Sydney a viable option, or getting a train between Sydney and Canberra competitive with air travel.

FUNDING : How much would people be prepared to pay for further investment in the transport system and what would be the expectation flowing from these investments?

I can’t put a number on this, or speak for the entire population of NSW. But there does seem to be an increased appetite for government spending on critical infrastructure, such as transport infrastructure, given the infrastructure deficit that has built up over recent years and the cost pressures that it has caused.

FUNDING : Given the limitations on funds available for future transport investment, what mechanisms should be employed to manage demand?

Congestion charging could help to manage private vehicle flows to limit congestion.

Also, encouraging employment in centres outside of the CBD, to make use of existing capacity on public transport from vehicles going in the counter flow direction during peak hour could allow unused capacity to be used, rather than having to invest in increasing existing capacity.

FUNDING : Should new revenues or charges be explored to deliver the transport infrastructure needs within a realistic timeframe?

Absolutely. Now is not the time to be ruling things out.

FUNDING : If further road user pricing were to be introduced, how should this operate? For example, by distance travelled? By vehicle type? Or should it be area based?

Distance travelled is a much more effective method of tolling, now that the technology exists to do it that way. Time of day tolling (congestion charging) should also be considered, as a way to discourage peak hour traffic and also to fund additional transport infrastructure.

OTHER COMMENTS : Are there any other comments about the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan Discussion Paper that you have?

The federal government is currently offering $2.1 billion in funding for public transport. Unfortunately, due to the political constraints of neither the state nor federal governments wanting to break a political promise, this $2.1 billion is not currently available. At a time when so much infrastructure needs to be built, losing this funding should not be considered an option.

It is therefore imperative that the NSW government do what it can to negotiate a compromise solution to this problem. This could involve offering to build some sort of high capacity transport link between Parramatta and Macquarie Park, which could be done at a fraction of the cost of the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link and thus allow the construction of the Northwest Rail Link (which is the current government’s priority). A number of proposals to do this (through BRT, light rail, etc) are currently on the table, and ultimately I care less about the option taken as I do about a compromise being struck.

But the worst outcome would be for both governments to stick to their guns, because then we all lose out.

More roads isn’t the solution to traffic congestion

The reason is simple – if you increase the supply of road space then you also increase the demand for its usage (what’s known as induced demand). It encourages people off public transport and into their cars until eventually the increase in car usage saturates the road space and congestion returns. These were the findings of a University of Toronto study into widening of roads - “In particular, if you had 1 percent more roads, you had 1 percent more driving in those cities”.

In fact, the converse is often also true. If you remove road space, then much of the time the number of cars using the road space also drops. Hence, congestion does not actually get worse either. Jane Jacobs explains it in this way:

“in a dense and active city that is rich with mobility options, there will be as much car traffic as the city chooses to make room for…[When a road is closed] the traffic that used the formerly busy road disappears, through countless private readjustments, so long as there is an abundant grid of alternate paths into which traffic can disperse, and other modes, such as public transit, to which it can convert, and other times of day to which it can shift its travel” – Jane Jacobs, Death and Life of Great American Cities (Chapter 18)

This is why the proposed pedestrianisation of major city streets in Australia, such as Swanston Street in Melbourne or George Street in Sydney, is not the horror idea that you might first imagine it to be.

A few decades ago, Swanston St was a 6 lane road right through the centre of Melbourne's CBD. Today it is being converted into a pedestrian, tram and bicycle corridor with no cars allowed on it. This is what it will end up looking like once the transformation is complete. Click on image for higher resolution. (Source: Author)

The city of Seoul in South Korea went one step further, and removed a major highway from the city (see video below), replacing it with a stream that was originally there. But rather than a massive increase in traffic and congestion, people moved to public transport or changed their travel times to work around the new road space availability. This phenomenon was described (at around 11:45 in the video) by comparing traffic to a gas – it expands or compresses to fit into the space provided, rather than a liquid – which spills over and floods other areas when not enough capacity is provided.

If you want to reduce congestion, the way to do it is to invest in public transport, cycling and walking infrastructure, all things that encourage people out of their cars, rather than merely building new roads or widening existing roads.

There is one big exception to this, and that’s new roads that take traffic off local roads. The Lane Cove Tunnel, which took cars off Epping Road, and the Cross City Tunnel, which took cars out of the CBD, are both recent examples that meet this description. All new freeways do this to some extent, so the question is whether this is the primary function of the road or merely a by-product.