Submission to the Senate Select Committee into the Abbott Government's Budget Cuts
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Submission to the Senate Select Committee into the Abbott
Government's Budget Cuts
from Philip Laird, University of Wollongong, September 2014
Given the changes made in the 2014 federal budget, the inquiry is considered as
timely. The submission after some general comments shall be confined to the land transport
sector, and will draw on research conducted at the University of Wollongong. However, it
does not necessarily reflect the views the University.
1. Some 2014 budget measures for transport
To quote from a joint May Budget media release by Deputy PM Truss and Minister
Briggs, the “Abbott government has delivered a record $50b investment in the budget to
build the infrastructure of the 21st century.”
The release notes a $40.8b outlay between 2013-14 and 2018-19, with a further
commitment of $4.5b budgeted for 2019-20 onwards.
From this and other statements, Federal contributions for urban roads include:
* Sydney: $1.5 billion towards West Connex and a loan of up to $2b to accelerate delivery of
a second stage. North Connex gets $405m and a 10-year road investment program of more
than $3.5b for Western Sydney (in connection with a new airport) - all up $7.4 billion;
* Melbourne: Construction in two stages of the East-West link – $3 billion;
* Brisbane: Realignment, widening and upgrade of 11.3 km of the Gateway Motorway in
Brisbane – $939m;
* Perth: A major upgrade of the roads around Perth Airport – $675m; and,
* Adelaide: North South road corridor – $944m.
The Federal contributions for non-urban roads include:
* Bruce Highway (Queensland): Over 10 years – $6.7b;
* Pacific Highway duplication (NSW): Completion of the upgrade of the Pacific Highway to
a dual carriageway by 2020 – $5.64b; and
* up to $1.285b towards the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing in southern Queensland, a
vital new link on the “national land freight network” to be delivered through a public/private
partnership.
These road projects are in addition to funding for road maintenance, black-spot
projects, the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, Roads to Recovery and untied
local grants.2
The Commonwealth will spend $40b over six years on roads, of which around a
quarter is likely to be new money.
It is of note that this new money includes some $4.25b cut from rail. What was left for
rail is mainly as follows:
$300m for inland railway preconstruction works;
$119.6m over five years to the Tasmanian Freight Rail Revitalisation Programme;
$75m towards the next stage of upgrades to the Port Botany Rail Line in Sydney including
the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal; and,
$50m to install Advanced Train Management System technology between Port Augusta and
Whyalla.
As a statement of Ministers Truss and Briggs notes: "Moving more freight onto rail
will reduce road congestion and make our highways safer. It will also encourage jobs growth
in the agricultural, transport and export sectors."
It is very clear from many commentators that the amount on offer for rail and public
transport is only the start of what is needed. The harsher reality is outlined in the words of
budget papers: "Total expenses under the rail transport sub-function are estimated to
decrease by 42.2 per cent in real terms from 2013-14 to 2014-15 and then decrease sharply
each year thereafter (a decrease of 68.7 per cent from 2014-15 to 2017-18) reflecting the
completion of projects announced in the 2009-10 Budget."
It is not just the completion of projects such as Victoria's Regional Rail link that is the
cause of a sharp decrease in federal funds for rail. The rail items cut from 2014-15 and
forward estimates included:
The Melbourne Metro ($3 billion)
Brisbane’s Cross-River Rail Project ($715 million)
Perth Airport rail line and light rail ($500 million)
Adelaide’s Tonsley Park public transport project ($31 million)
All up, nearly $4.25 billion has been cut from urban rail. In addition, the former High
Speed Rail (HSR) Advisory Group was abolished. As well, there are now unfunded ALP pre-
election commitments to spend $50m on advancing HSR and a further $50m towards
advancing completion of the Maldon Dombarton rail link in NSW.
1.1 Caution of more federal funds for roads
As noted below in Section 1.7, roads have been generously funded by the federal
government in recent years. Road proposals should be sound enough to stand on their own3
merits, deriving all funds from road users, whilst leaving some funds from road users to cover
significant external costs and to provide some funds for transport alternatives to roads.
In addition, it is desirable for federal funding of land transport to be used in a way that
reduces dependency on imported oil. This will NOT be done by building more roads.
During 2011-12, cars, buses and trucks used nearly 32 billion litres of petrol, diesel,
and LPG (Australian Bureau of Statistics, Survey of Motor Vehicle Usage for 12 months
ended 30 June 2012. Cat. No. 9208.0 at abs.gov.au). By way of contrast, rail used 1.67
billion litres of diesel (or its equivalent in a year for a smaller passenger task but a larger
freight task than road (please link to Australasian Railway Association Australian Rail
Industry Report 2013 at ara.net.au). This reflects the fact that rail is much more energy
efficient than road transport to move people and freight.
1.2 An International View
A mid 2014 United States report examined energy efficiency in 16 OECD countries
on the four fronts of national efforts, buildings, industry and transport. The 2014 ACEEE
International Energy Scorecard (via http://www.aceee.org) is based on points awarded for 31
key metrics using OECD, International Energy Agency and other independent data. On a
combined policy and performance basis, Germany was ranked first, Australia tenth and
Mexico last at 16th.
Regretfully, (page 16) "One country in which a clear backward trend exists is
Australia." The report notes that this has occurred recently.
Moreover, in the transport sector, using 8 key metrics, Australia was ranked last
(16th) with just 7 points out of 25.
Of the 8 metrics, Australia scored zero points for each of three metrics: Fuel economy
of passenger vehicles on both performance and the setting of future standards, and, for having
no fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks.
For each of four metrics including the use of public transit, and, investment in rail
transit versus roads, Australia scored just one point each.
Only in the metric "energy intensity of freight transport" did Australia get full marks.
This score was assisted by the very high energy efficiency of the iron ore railways in the
Pilbara region of WA.
Such a low ranking for transport energy efficiency policy and performance (the lowest
of the 16 OECD countries surveyed) should act as an incentive for Australia to do better.4
1.3 Oil Vulnerability
Road transport is highly energy intensive. Energy efficiency and oil vulnerability
issues affecting the transport of people and freight are identified in many reports, including a
report released 7 February 2007 of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
Committee from the Inquiry into Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels.
The report noted that " if there is a long term rise in the price of fuel, this will favour rail
because fuel is a greater proportion of costs for road transport. This may suggest a need to
increase the pace of catchup investment in rail infrastructure."
In this regard, the 2008 Garnaut Climate Change review report noted (Chapter 21
'Transforming transport', p 503) that "Governments have a major role in lowering the
economic costs of adjustment to higher oil prices, an emissions price and population growth,
through planning for more compact urban forms and rail and urban public transport. Mode
shift may account for a quarter of emissions reductions in urban public transport…"
If international oil prices continue to trend upwards, or even if they stay about the
same as at present and the Australian dollar falls to levels of several years ago, Australians
will be looking at petrol prices of $2 per litre. An increase in Australian petrol prices to $2
per litre will put a lot of pressure on existing public transport. This may result in an increased
level of scrutiny as to past government failure to extend Australia's urban rail network.
The 2013 Queensland Freight Strategy recognised oil vulnerability as an issue.
1.4 Some Australian views
By the late 1990s, Australia had excessive car dependency and the highest road
freight, per capita in the world.
In the late 1990s, both Engineers Australia and the Chartered Institute of Logistics
and Transport gave considered warnings that cheap oil would not last forever, and more
energy efficient transport was needed.
These warnings were followed in 2002 with one from the then Secretary of the
Australian Treasury, Dr Ken Henry in an address to the ATRF and BTRE Colloquium in
October 2002 (http://archive.treasury.gov.au/documents/440/PDF/Transport_Speech.pdf)
about the very challenging problems posed to future generations on the projected increases in
urban traffic and interstate road freight.
In 2004, oil prices were rising, yet there were government forecasts that oil could be
expected to drop back to $US20 a barrel. However, by mid 2008, oil prices had peaked at
about $146 per barrel. Following the global recession, oil prices have since receded and so5
petrol prices have been restrained at about $100 a barrel. They are expected to increase over
the next decade.
A further reason for reform is the sheer amount of money spent on road transport. In
the early 1990s, research commissioned by the Australian Automobile Association found that
the total cost of road vehicle operations, including the fuel they use, buying and maintaining
the vehicles, road works, road crashes and external costs was about 11 per cent of GDP. In
2013-14 terms, this is some $173 billion (http://www.rba.gov.au/inflation/measures-
cpi.html). Due to fuel costs and road outlays increasing faster than inflation over the past 20
years, and growing road congestion, this estimate is conservative.
There are numerous hidden costs of road vehicle use. Including the cost of road
crashes, environmental costs, health impairment from motor vehicle emissions, and foregone
tax revenue, but not including road congestion, leading to leading to a "road deficit" of about
1 per cent of GDP.
Road congestion costs add a further 1 per cent or so of GDP. These costs simply
cannot be reduced by building more roads.
1.5 Melbourne East West and Sydney Westconnex/North Connex tollways
It is submitted that a sound business case for any of these expensive proposals has not
as yet been made, and inadequate consideration has been given to a combination of improved
road pricing, including time of day congestion pricing, and improved public transport.
The 2013 National Infrastructure Plan of Infrastructure Australia, within priorities
under the transforming our cities theme, gave "ready to proceed" to the Brisbane Cross River
Rail project, and "Threshold" to Melbourne's Metro. As well, within priorities under the
international gateways theme, the East West Link in Melbourne (18 km of roads with some
tunnels costing $6-8 bn but likely a lot more) rates "real potential" (third level) whilst West
Connex favoured by the NSW Government and costing $10-13 bn rates just "Early stage"
(fourth and lowest level).
It is wishful thinking that road congestion in Sydney and Melbourne can be reduced
by building more roads. The overseas experience is that a more balanced strategy, including
rail, is needed to reduce road congestion.
Here, as noted by Ross Gittins in the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) for 14 August
2013: "The Coalition doesn't seem to have learnt what I thought everyone realised by now:
building more expressways solves congestion only for long as it takes more people to switch
to driving their cars."6
1.6 Concern re Pacific Highway and Bruce Highway
In 1996 some 65 km, or 9 per cent, of the Pacific Highway from Maitland to the New
South Wales/Queensland Border (total length 672km) had four lanes. By March 2008, 263
km were dual carriageway standard, and by Oct 2013 this had increased to 368 km (some 56
per cent of highway) with a further 73 km under construction. The remaining kilometres are
either approved for construction or have had a preferred route identified. The cost for
reconstruction of the entire highway, for many years until 2013 held as a 2016 goal, and now
2020, will appreciably exceed earlier quoted estimates of $10 billion.
However, in 2012, Infrastructure NSW [First things first, p143] noted the due to
relatively low traffic volumes on the remaining sections, the economic merit of their
reconstruction is much lower at 0.8 (Benefit Cost Ratio) than that of the Highway as a whole;
also "...given competing priorities for NSW and Commonwealth Government funds, the high
cost and relatively limited benefits of these remaining sections raises questions ... appropriate
scope of works and priority for those sections with relatively light traffic."
The question of using tolls to expedite Pacific Highway upgrades was raised in a
2005 agreement between the NSW and Federal Government to undertake economic and
financial analysis to include options to accelerate completion such as tolls and private sector
involvement.
In 2006, the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics [now BITRE, Freight
Measurement and Modelling in Australia Report 112 Canberra p61] gave past data and
forward projections for road and rail freight on various intercapital city corridors with
caveats, including on the Sydney - Brisbane, For 1989, the rail share of land freight on this
sector was then 40.7 per cent.
Using BITRE projections for 2014, rails modal share of intercapital city intermodal of
land freight on the Sydney - Brisbane sectors would be just 9.2 per cent. However, even
this conservative projection has not been attained.
Instead, the ongoing reconstruction of the Pacific Highway whilst leaving the NSW
North Coast railway with a sub-standard alignment (despite the work of the Australian Rail
Track Corporation - ARTC) has resulted in heavy truck induced traffic, with a marked
increase in energy use, emissions and external costs. The extra fuel use results from the fact
that rail is approximately three times more energy efficient than road for line haulage of non-
bulk freight. Hence the emissions (CO2) have increased. Estimates of external costs similar
to those considered in 2011-12 by the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of7
New South Wales for the movement of grain show that road freight has appreciably higher
external costs than rail freight.
Clearly, a more balanced approach between funding the Pacific Highway
(reconstruction to modern engineering standards) and the NSW North Coast railway (mostly
concrete sleepers and patch up with limited curve easting and overdue modern signalling
from Casino to Brisbane) would have given better results, both now and into the future.
In regards to the Bruce Highway in Queensland, this has a record forward allocation
of federal funds. In 2007, rail was noted in a Brisbane Cairns AusLink strategy as moving 25
to 30 per cent of freight on this corridor. This in part is due to the work done in the 1990s
under the MainLine Upgrade program for longer and faster freight trains and was followed up
in 1998 by the Queensland Tilt Train.
However, if the Bruce Highway has an $6.7 billion upgrade and no further upgrading
is done on the Brisbane Cairns railway, rails share of Brisbane Cairns corridor freight will
fall, as it has in recent years, on the Pacific Highway. This will only lead to an increase in
fatal road crashes, use of diesel and more emissions and increased external costs.
In 2007 a Parliamentary inquiry chaired by longstanding Queensland MP Mr Paul
Neville found that further upgrading of the Brisbane to Cairns line was needed, including a
new bridge over the Burnett River near Bundaberg; also that the present bridge was subject to
a speed limit of 15km/h.
If this rail bridge were to fail - it would not only inconvenience many people who use
the train, having to use buses for part of their journey but also put a lot more heavy trucks on
the Bruce Highway. For much of its length the Bruce Highway is not a safe road. The railway
plays its part in keeping prices in Coles and Woolworths supermarkets in Cairns and
Townsville towards Brisbane levels. The Committee may like to ask if there are any plans to
replace the bridge and the track nearby and so remove the need for the train to travel down
the middle of the road at North Bundaberg.
It is important that the there is some effort to given some balance between federal
funding of intercity rail and the Bruce Highway.
1.7 A recent Australian report
Informed comment on our land transport policy (or lack thereof) has been provided in
a recent report Spend more, waste more Australia’s roads in 2014: moving beyond
gambling. The report, prepared for Infrastructure Australia was briefly placed on their
website, and then withdrawn. It now may be found at the website (http://www.ycat.org.au) of8
the Yarra Campaign for Action on Transport who would much prefer a better rail system for
Melbourne rather than the proposed East West motorway that could cost up to $1 billion per
kilometre - that is $1 million per metre!
The latest report notes Australia's three levels of government and the private sector
are now spending over $20 billion a year on road construction and maintenance; and,
"between 2008-09 and 2011-12, over $4.5 billion more was spent on roads than was raised
in almost all road taxes and charges" (from Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional
Economics Infrastructure Statistics Yearbook (2013) p.41).
After noting the need for reform in road pricing, including mass distance location for
the heavier trucks, the report considers that the big annual outlay of roads, which is set to
grow even larger at the expense of federal funding of urban rail, is a "road spend [that] can
only be described as hideously inefficient."
2. Urban Public transport
Attention is drawn to a 2012 report Can we afford to get our cities back on the rails?
of the Grattan Institute. The paper looks back to the 19th Century, and towards the end, after
reviewing a number of potentially valuable projects, and possible measures of part funding
them, concludes:
None of these measures are politically easy but there is evidence that voters have a
big appetite for change in urban transport. In a 2011 survey for the National Transport
Commission close to half the population agreed they would - like to be able to drive
less - and more than four in five agreed that the government should develop more
public transport services to give people a realistic alternative to driving. With political
leadership and a clearer linking of costs and benefits, new urban rail lines might yet
have a place in our future transport mix.
Perhaps the most obvious lesson of history is that urban passenger rail is a long-lived
asset that can benefit a city more than a century after it is built. As J.J.C Bradfield
wrote about the Sydney Harbour Bridge: ―Future generations will judge our
generation by our works.
Quite simply, of Australia’s five major cities, only Perth has a good urban rail system
that has been recently expanded to meet growth areas. In fact, Perth (assisted by smart cards
for multimodal fare payment) now exhibits world best practice.The success of expanding,
electrifying and upgrading Perth's rail system, is reflected in Public Transport Authority
(PTA) 2012-13 patronage data that shows a record 65.5 million rail trips. This is TEN9
TIMES that of 30 years ago. Of these trips, some 21 million were for a railway that was not
operational until late 2007 called Perth to Mandurah. Moreover, PTA data shows Perth bus
patronage growing each year since the Mandurah line was opened in late 2007.
Further upgrades are underway with the August 2013 WA budget allocating $3.9
billion investment for the 22km MAX Light Rail and the Airport Rail Link. They would be
assisted by the ongoing Federal funding of public transport.
Adelaide, Brisbane and Melbourne have catch-up programmes underway.
However Melbourne needs a metro. In March 2013, the Napthine government
outlined a 20-year plan for Melbourne's rail network, with the centrepiece being a new
Melbourne Metro. In May 2014, the project name was changed to Melbourne Rail Link and
will now have 7.5 km twin tunnels, from Southern Cross Station (SCS) to South Yarra.
It is designed to follow the large Regional Rail Link project that provides about 90
kilometres of dual track from West Werribee via Sunbury to the Southern Cross Station in
Melbourne. This $4.8 billion project is being much assisted by federal funding of $3.2 billion
and the majority of construction work is due to be completed by 2014-15, ahead of schedule.
The project builds on the success of Regional Fast Rail that operates on four upgraded
lines to Bendigo, Ballarat, Geelong and Gippsland with new V/Locity Cars moving up to 160
km/h. Within five years from start up in 2005, patronage on the four lines had doubled.
Clearly, the travelling public like intercity services that travel at speeds faster than cars. As
well, Melbourne's urban rail has seen a large increase in passenger numbers, with a need to
further upgrade the system to accommodate future growth.
In addition, in April 2013, Victoria's acting Auditor-General, in a report to Parliament
"Managing traffic congestion" (at audit.vic.gov.au) concluded that ''The economic costs of
congestion are significant and rising" with recommendations including that "Public
Transport Victoria develops explicit mode shift strategies and targets."
Brisbane's Underground Bus and Train Project comprising 5 km of double decked
tunnel ("BAT") with three new stations needs construction to start in 2015.
Public passenger transport services include inter-urban rail services (eg Sydney-
Newcastle) and may also be regarded as including intercity services such as Sydney
Canberra. The quality of these services including the all important transit time depend
critically on track alignment and capacity questions.
Light rail (including trams in Melbourne and Adelaide and now the Gold Coast) is
also important.
Australia needs to make more effort to get mode shifts to urban public transport.10
2. A federal role for urban public transport
The year of 1974 saw the introduction of Commonwealth funding of urban public
transport in Australia's major cities under the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Act by
the Whitlam Government. Prior to 1974, there had been no Commonwealth funding for urban
public transport in Australia's state capital cities. The Act ratified an agreement between the
Commonwealth and States to upgrade urban public transport.
It is of note that such funding was continued under the Fraser Government by passage
of legislation in 1978. Although this program was terminated in 1981, the Australian
Bicentennial Trust Fund Act 1982 allowed that some funds provided for Urban Arterial
Roads could be used for approved urban public transport projects.
Federal funding of urban public transport in the 35 years from 1974 to 2009 has been
characterised by 'on-again, off-again' funding. This cycle is now about to repeat itself. As
noted in 2009 by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee re urban
public transport, and also (in 2004 by P Laird, G Adorni-Braccesi and M Collett Australian
land transport - is it sustainable ? Towards Sustainable Land Transport Conference 2004 in
Wellington New Zealand) in the 30 years from 1974 to 2004, in 2004 values the Federal
Government allocated $24.6 bn to the National Highway System with $58.0 bn on all roads,
$2.2 bn to rail capital works, and about $1.8 bn to urban public transport.
It would be good to see the corresponding figures for the five year periods from 2004
to 2009, and then 2009 to 2014. The introduction of AusLink in 2004 and National Building
in 2009 were steps forward with a better balance between the funding of roads as opposed to
rail and urban public transport. Why reverse the trend now ?
Regarding 'AusLink', enabling legislation was introduced to Parliament in December
2004, with Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson noting, inter alia "We upgrade our roads
and immediately they are filled with more cars. We simply have to do it in a more
coordinated way and upgrade rail at the same time as we upgrade the roads. We need to do
that in a coordinated and sensible fashion so that what belongs on the roads goes on the
roads and what belongs on rail goes on rail."
There have been many Parliamentary and other inquiries held since 1979 that have
recommended improved rail and urban public transport. A partial list is given in Appendix A.
In regards to revenue raising, the reintroduction of indexation of fuel excise is long
overdue in Australia. It is submitted that at least half the proceeds should be allocated to
urban public transport. The issue of fuel tax rebates also needs addressing, as does long
overdue reform of heavy vehicle road user charges.11
3. Australia is falling behind other Asia Pacific countries re metros
Throughout the Asia Pacific region, numerous urban metro systems are already
operational, under construction, or in the advanced stages of planning.
One notable example is the Shanghai Metro system. As noted by the Hon Malcolm
Turnbull MP on the ABC’s Q & A program aired on 26 July 2010, the Shanghai Metro
opened in 1995 with just one line. "… It now has 420 kilometres of track, 269 stations,
carries six million people a day and by 2020 will be twice that size. So you can have the
infrastructure you want. You don't have to be, you know, a China. You…can do it if you've
got the leadership and commitment …”
It has taken Shanghai just 20 years after the opening of their first line to build more
than 500km of metro lines and the current plan is to have a combined metro track length of
877km by 2020.
The number of cities in China with metro style networks is growing rapidly. China
intends to build a further 1000 km of light rail and metros by the end of 2015.
Turning to Hong Kong, their Mass Transit Railway currently has construction
advancing on not one, but no fewer than five fronts to extend their existing 218 km rail
network. Four projects are metros with the West Island line due for completion this year,
followed in 2015 by an extension of an existing line and South Island line, whilst the Shatin
to Central link is due to open in 2020. The fifth project is the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong
Kong Express Rail Link to connect by 2015 with China’s high-speed rail network.
Taiwan has also seen metro development, with its capital city Taipei getting its first
operational line in 1996. It now has four lines that have given relief to traffic congestion and
assisted in urban renewal and most are in the process of being extended. Kaochiun, a major
city connected to Taipei since 2007 by a 345 km high-speed rail line, has two metro lines that
opened in 2008.
3.1 Singapore
Singapore is of interest in that it combines an expanding metro system with road
pricing. This includes the requirement to hold a permit in order to own a car (that can often
cost more than the car) and congestion (time of day) pricing for access to the CBD combined
with higher petrol prices at around $A2 per litre.
Singapore’s metro aspirations started with two lines (North South and East West) in
1987. It has since extended its metro system with a North East line starting in 2003, the first
section of a Circle line opening in 2009 and a Downtown line opening in December 2013. In12
addition, there are two smaller feeder lines (fully automated mini-metros) with combined
metro transit journeys of around three million per day. Further projects are due to come on
line in 2016, with two more lines planned to open between 2015 and 2020 and others planned
to follow through to 2030.
Singapore's Land Transport Authority takes the enlightened view that "we really can't
afford to keep on building more roads … and it’s not hard to agree that public transport - a
greener mode of travel - is the way to go.”
3.2 Across the Pacific
In time for the 1986 World Expo, Vancouver opened an automated metro system
called Skytrain. A second line (Millennium) was opened in two stages by 2006 while a third
line, called the Canada Line, opened in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics extending from
the waterfront to Vancouver's International Airport.
Patronage on the new Canada line has exceeded all expectations, although nowhere
near the same league as Singapore. A Skytrain branch to Coquitlam Centre has been under
construction since 2012 for completion by 2016, and a Canada Line branch to the University
of British Columbia may be expected by 2020.
In Los Angeles, which after WWII closed its street car lines and for decades has
looked to cars as the dominant people mover, started in the 1980's to rebuild an urban rail
network.
By 2012, with the opening of an Expo line, their system of two subway lines and four
light rail lines had a combined length of 140 km with some 80 stations. Extensions to existing
lines and new lines are under construction or detailed planning.
3.3 Over the Tasman
In New Zealand, Auckland, whose urban rail system in the 1990s was all but destined
for closure, has been upgraded with modest extensions with patronage growth from just 2
million passengers per annum (mppa) to over 10 mppa. New electric trains started operation
in April 2014 and are projected to move 20 mppa by 2020.
The next rail major project is a 3.4 km underground City Rail Link to allow through
running from Auckland’s Britomart station to another line with three new stations. The
acquisition of land to build, operate and maintain the City Rail Link has already begun with
construction due to start 2015. The opening of the new line is due by 2021 at an expected cost
of over NZ$2 billion.13
In February 2012, Auckland Council identified 14 funding options. These included
higher petrol prices and three tolling options (one focused just on new roads, one on the
motorway network and another on congested points). Similar initiatives could work well in
Australia's larger cities.
It is of note that since 2001 when Australia froze fuel excise at about 38 cents per
litre, New Zealand, with bipartisan support in the Parliament, has incrementally increased its
fuel excise to over 50 cents per litre with proceeds going to both road and rail projects.
4. Comment re Australia's intercity rail system
To begin, reference is made to the 2010 Engineers Australia Infrastructure Report
Card:
"Rail has been given a D+ rating. Rail infrastructure includes metropolitan passenger
networks, freight and regional passenger services, grain lines, the interstate networks
and private railways. The low rating has been given on the basis that urban rail
networks cannot cope with demand. There is a need for a high speed rail network
along the eastern coast of Australia to ease airport congestion and to reverse the trend
of declining regional rail utilisation, which is resulting in more road traffic. The
interstate network and Pilbara railways in particular are in a good condition.
"Improving the efficiency and productivity of existing rail networks is a challenge in
many jurisdictions. For instance, increasing train length, load capacity, operating
speed and turnaround time will require considerable improvements in rolling stock,
below-rail infrastructure, and port-rail connections and intermodal hubs. The
investment to achieve improvements will require substantial investment over at least a
decade."
The result for rail was a set back from a C- in 2005 to D + in 2010. Sydney comes in
for particular mention, including its population predicted to increase by 550,000 people by
2021 and that transit times need reducing to the neighbouring centres of Wollongong, the
Blue Mountains and Newcastle. In several cases, these times are slower than in the past.
Examples are cited.
The 2010 EA Infrastructure Report considers that it is "essential to increase rail freight
to accommodate the greater freight task…" and to this end, it is necessary to improve the
interstate and regional freight lines, plus develop multi-use intermodal terminals. Coal lines
in NSW and Queensland will also need attention. Improved separation of freight and
passenger trains is "particularly needed in Sydney and Brisbane". The relative low pricing of14
road freight is noted and ensuring 'user pays' is an issue (p19) "that will need to be addressed
sooner rather than later."
The new high speed rail feasibility study was welcomed, and a need for land corridor
protection, including to Canberra, is noted in the Report Card. Finally, failure to address
integrated land-use and transport planning and the existing deficiencies of rail (p24) "will
impose huge costs on future generations."
This echoes an earlier theme of a 1994 National Transport Planning Taskforce report
in commenting on the need for better planning for transport in Australia into the 21 st
century: "Perpetuation of existing arrangements will condemn the nation to ineffective
results"
In addition, well over 100 years since Britain, Canada and the United States resolved
the question of railway gauges in favour of a uniform and standard gauge (4’8.5” or
1435mm), Australia still has a multiplicity of railway gauges.
On the other hand, there is no doubt about rail’s potential to perform well in moving
freight in Australia. Examples of world best practice operations include the iron-ore trains in
the Pilbara, Central Queensland electric coal trains, and East West rail freight operations west
of Adelaide and Parkes.
4.1 Interstate rail track
In the area of the existing interstate rail freight track, whilst recognising the work
done by the ARTC on the East-West corridor (linking Melbourne to Perth) and more recently
the North-South corridor (Melbourne-Brisbane), much more work is needed on both
corridors. In short, much of the North-South track linking Australia’s three largest cities has
substandard alignment and it needs straightening. The present track linking Australia's three
largest cities is at least 150 km longer than it needs to be and has excessive curvature limiting
speed weight performance.
A report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and
Regional Services (the Neville Committee - 2007, The Great Freight Task: Is Australia’s
transport network up to the challenge? page 128) found that "… the greatest need for
Australia is the reconstruction and realignment of the main freight networks. This would:
allow faster speeds and greater axle loads;
clear the way for longer trains and double stacked containers;
make it possible to reduce the steepness of grades, straighten lines and remove loops; and
allow for the elimination of many level crossings."15
Indeed, as noted in a 2008 submission by the ARTC to Infrastructure Australia (p20)
“ For rail to move to the next step in competitiveness, or even in fact to maintain
competitiveness against a constantly improving road network, there is no alternative but to
start to consider deviations of the current poorly aligned sections of the network.”
Both the East-West and North-South corridors have long standing restrictions on axle
weights. The current standard in Class I railways in Canada and the United States is for
wagons with 286 000 lb (gross weight) which corresponds to axle loads of 31.8 tonnes. This
requires track with good formation and heavy rails etc. In short, the mainline track of
Canadian and US Class I Railroads allows for “FAST AND HEAVY” freight trains moving
at 100 km/h with 25 tonne or more axle loads. However, the Australian standard over much
of the ARTC network (excluding the Hunter Valley coal lines in NSW) is restricted to 23
tonne axle load (TAL) limit for wagons moving no faster than 80 km per hour, or a 21 TAL
limit for wagons moving no faster than 115 km per hour.
In addition to overhead clearances being unduly restrictive east of Adelaide and
Parkes, crossing loop lengths are at best is mostly limited to 1800 metres. Canadian Pacific is
now extending its loops to 12 000 feet or about 3600 metres.
The commitment to start work on an Inland Railway between Melbourne and
Brisbane via Parkes is a positive step forward that has bipartisan support. It is important
however that new construction be built to Canadian and US Class I Railroad standards rather
than existing Australian standards.
To expedite major rail deviations, and in the case of a new Inland Railway, as is the
case with reconstruction of the Hume and Pacific Highways, some effort in planning and
investment will be required by Government. A case study of a major deviation between
Hexham and Stroud Road was noted in 2007 report of the Neville Committee where the
construction of 67 km of new track would replace a substandard 91 km section to halve
transit times and reduce fuel use by 40 per cent.
The Australian Government makes funds available for the advanced planning of the
Pacific and other major interstate highways. It is submitted that funding provision should be
made for expediting advanced planning for major rail track upgrades. The case for special
federal funding to allow the ARTC to expedite such forward planning is strengthened by the
fact that the ARTC is a Corporation as opposed to a public authority.
This includes giving more attention to reserving corridors, by both State and Federal
Governments. This is not only new railways, or minor works close to existing railways, but
also for future rail deviations and a future high speed rail line.16
As seen by a former Queensland Transport Minister, the Hon Paul Lucas MP (as
quoted, Track and Signal, Oct-Nov-Dec 2005, page 77) there is a need to “reserve rail
corridor land before it becomes a costly issue.”
4.2 Rail in regional Australia
Grain line condition in many states has deteriorated, and this in part is a consequence
of privatisation of certain rail assets. Many such lines now need rehabilitation. Again, the
issues were well covered (including the option used in Canada where governments move to
support rather than overregulate short line operations) in the above cited 2007 report "The
Great Freight Task: Is Australia's transport network up to the challenge?"
As is often the case, New South Wales is of particular concern. The title of an article
in The Land, 11 August 2011 says it all: "Call this a rail system? - ‘Third world’ branch lines
driving freight onto roads." Rail access pricing of NSW grain lines was the subject of a
review by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART). The 2012 report of this
review also gives attention to road cost recovery from heavy trucks, and external costs.
Australia is facing increased competition for its grain exports. Substandard rail is a
drag on the regional economy. As noted by the Australian Financial Review (AFR: 24 March
2014 "Poor rail could cost economy"), Canada has heavier grain trains than Australia does.
5. Conclusions
Very simply, an inadequate rail system leads to an over dependence on road transport
to move people and freight.
As noted above, Australia's road vehicle use comes at a high cost. Federal funding of
roads, at the expense of rail, will increase rather than reduce Australia's oil vulnerability.
Future generations are unlikely to hold this in good regard.
Clearly, current federal policies of putting more money into roads and less into rail is
a case of WRONG WAY: GO BACK. A more sustainable approach would be for Australia's
major cities to expand their urban railways, and for people to use more buses, cycling and or
walking, and for more freight on rail or to be sent by sea transport. This would reduce liquid
fuel use and hence emissions.
Assoc. Professor Philip Laird, Ph D, FCILT, Comp IE Aust
University of Wollongong NSW 252217
APPENDIX A SOME GOVERNMENT INQUIRIES AND REPORTS RELEVANT
TO REDUCING OIL USE AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN TRANSPORT
(including improving road pricing)
During the 1970s
1979 Australian Transport Advisory Council Transport and Energy Overview
During the 1980s
1980 Sydney - Melbourne rail electrification study
1984 National Road Freight Industry Inquiry
1986 Federal Department of Energy, Inter-State Commission
1987 Inter-State Commission
During the 1990s
1991 Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology Rescue the
Future: reducing the impact of the greenhouse effect
1991 Industry Commission Rail Transport, and Greenhouse Gases (two inquiries)
1991 Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Working Group on Transport
1994 Industry Commission Urban Transport
1994 National Transport Planning Taskforce
1996 Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics in its 2002 Report No 105
Greenhouse policy options for transport 2020
1997 Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering re urban air
pollution
1998 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and
Microeconomic Reform, Tracking Australia
1999 Productivity Commission Progress in rail reform
1999 Prime Ministers Rail Projects Task Force 'Revitalising Rail'
During the past fourteen years
2000 Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Reference Committee The heat is on: Australia's greenhouse future
2001 Australian Rail Track Corporation Interstate Track Audit
2002 Fuel taxation inquiry report (is rejected by Federal Government)
2002 Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics in its 2002 Report No 105
Greenhouse policy options for transport 2020 /AusLink Green Paper
2003 Parry Inquiry (NSW Ministry for Transport) Sustainable Transport
2004 AusLink White Paper
2005 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage
Sustainable Cities
2005 Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee re
AusLink
2007 Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee re Inquiry into
Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels
2007 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services
The Great Freight Task: Is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge?
2009 Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) Committee re urban public
transport
2014 RRAT Committee - Role of public transport in delivering productivity outcomes
2014 Senate Economics Legislation Committee Re Fuel Indexation (Road Funding) BillsYou can also read
