Infrastructure: Whose Interest Rules?

The Bracks Government has struggled when it comes to infrastructure, both in deciding what to do and in getting things done.

Its problem stems from two things.  First in opposition it opposed not just specific initiatives but the basic philosophy behind Kennett's approach to infrastructure.  Second, as a Government it knows that Kennett by-and-large did the right thing for the right reason in terms of infrastructure.

What the Brack's Government needed after winning office was a Blairite Third Way type infrastructure plan, to help resolve this quandary.  If this is what they had in mind when they established the Infrastructure Planning Council (IPC) they will be disappointed.

While the Final Report of the Council released last month has its strengths, in particular the section on water, the section on transport -- the area the Government needs the most assistance -- is abysmal.

Rather than provide a fresh approach, based on rigorous research the IPC appears to have largely cobbled together the opinions and arguments of interest groups.  The problem with this approach aside from offering little new, is that it is only as good and as balanced as the set of interested groups whose views are sought.

In the case of water, on which there is a good deal of recent quality research and a broadly-based set of interests, the approach worked well.

However, in the case of transport which has long been dominated by the anti-car lobby, it has failed badly.

The Report concluded that "the two fundamental priorities of transport infrastructure ... are public transport and healthy rail competition for freight".  It calls for pie-in-the-sky target of 20% of passenger journeys to be via public transport by the year 2020 -- a three found increase in the sectors share.  Cars and road are presented as harmful things that need to be comprehensively suppressed through the use of such things as higher car registration fees, limiting parking access, imposing road user charges, giving trams priority, and traffic free zones.  Only six of the Report's fifty-two paragraphs on transport concern road construction and while the Report recommends the inter-connection of the metropolitan freeways, it states that "such connections (are a) low priority compared to upgrading public transport system".

In short the Report gives public transport which accounts for just 6 per cent of personal travel far higher priority in terms of infrastructure than cars which account for over 73 per cent of personal travel on a statewide basis, 83 per cent on urban fringe and over 90 per cent in rural areas.  Of course, public transport and rail are vitally important, but so is road infrastructure.

The Report is strangely mute on the privatisation of public transport which has stopped the freefall in public transport usage.  It says nothing about the $1 billion investment currently underway by the private metro train and tram operators.  It also says nothing about the large investment under consideration by the new private owners of the interstate rail network.

To the Government's credit, it has rejected most of the more silly recommendations of the Report.  In particular it will continue to give high priority to road construction.

Nonetheless, the Report failed to provide a balanced approach to transport planning and does not provide an appropriate vision for infrastructure.  It back to the drawing board once again.

ADVERTISEMENT