Abbott and Rail

[apologies for any bias in this]

Perth's PT narrative has taken an interesting twist.

Tony Abbott won't fund...

Rewind to just before the last state election. The Liberal and Labor parties have been outbidding each other on public transport promises for the election. Labour's Metronet plan, promising up to six new railway lines, including the centrepiece North and South Circle and Ellenbrook Lines, was countered by the Liberal party plan to build MAX light rail to Mirrabooka along Alexander Dr, and an underground railway to the Airport, and beyond to Forrestfield. The Liberals won that election, so their transport plans should go ahead.

... MAX light rail.

Colin Barnett's plan did rely on federal funding, requiring 50% of MAX, and 80% of the Airport line costs in Commonwealth funding. Mark McGowan's labour planned to fund Metronet entirely from the state budget, but to be fair, where could we find the money? The Commonwealth should be willing enough to fund public transport; after all, its patronage is rising, and it is useful for saving the environment, growing the economy and transporting all.

The thing is... Colin's federal Liberal counterpart, Tony Abbott, announced recently that if he was elected he would not fund urban rail, only roads. Abbott, when questioned in Melbourne about funding their 9km Metro tunnel, said:

“The commonwealth government has a long history of funding roads.

“We have no history of funding urban rail and I think it is important that we stick to our knitting and the commonwealth’s knitting when it comes to funding infrastructure is roads."

Abbott may not have even had WA in mind, but this has enormous implications for Western Australia. If federal Liberal wins the upcoming election, one of state Liberal's cornerstones will be jeopardised.

Julia Gillard, being a member of the opposite party, was not unwilling to chastise Barnett:

Last week on her visit to Perth, Prime Minister Julia Gillard poured cold water on Mr Barnett’s hopes, saying the Premier was not in a position to make promises about Federal funding.


“Premier Barnett would have to go through proper assessment processes.

“Now, I can’t tell you what the outcome of those proper, rigorous assessment processes would be. He needs to put forward his proposals.”

However, she is the Prime Ministerial candidate more favourable to Colin Barnett and state Liberal's transport policies. The possibility of federal funding is better than nothing.

In fact, Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Anthony Albanese was proud of funding the Perth City Link project, and his party was not afraid to place a large article as an election ad in the West Australian. The ads contents are found here, I believe.

Colin Barnett responded to Abbott, saying that it was true the Federal government traditionally has only funded roads...

“However, given the current Federal (Labor) Government’s support of $236 million for rail infrastructure at the Perth City Link and $3 million towards planning of the MAX light rail project, we expect that future Federal governments, whether Liberal or Labor, would consider the benefits of funding such important transport initiatives based on merit,” Mr Barnett said.

“We will continue efforts with the Federal Government to deliver this important project for the people of WA.”

The prospect of Barnett failing to deliver on transport promises is especially troubling, considering that the Liberal party has traditionally been averse to public transport. The Ellenbrook Line promise was abandoned, and State Liberal opponents would jump on another undelivered transport project, criticising Barnett as untrustworthy.  Ben Wyatt already started with this:

“Mr Abbott has, well before the September Federal election, confirmed that any Federal Government he leads will not contribute to urban rail.

“The Liberal Party spent millions of dollars during the election campaign telling Western Australians that both MAX light rail and the airport line were ‘fully funded’ and ‘fully costed’.

“The WA election was less than a month ago and already Colin Barnett has walked away from his promised timeline to deliver his key election promises and Tony Abbott has confirmed that not one cent will come from any Federal Government he leads.”

Other Premiers are not pleased with Tony Abbott either. Victorian Premier Dennis Napthine, whom Abbott's comments referred to directly, said:

''We will actively and strongly pursue Infrastructure Australia and federal government funding for all three of these important projects whether it's Julia Gillard as prime minister or Tony Abbott as prime minister.''

This is especially prescient, as Tony Abbott pledged $1.5 billion to another tunnel across inner Melbourne, but one containing a road: The East-West Link. It has a Cost-Benefit ratio of only 0.7, meaning that the cost of building it is more than the calculated benefits from it.

The Queensland Liberal-National party was not happy with Tony Abbott either. They listed the underground Cross River Rail line, similar to Melbourne's tunnel, as one of their top three priorities. Queensland Transport Minister Scott Emerson said:

"Without Federal funding these projects cannot proceed.

"We are lobbying both the federal Coalition and federal Labor ahead of the next election to get the best deal possible for Queenslanders."

Abbott's refusal to fund urban rail runs counter to a previous commitment to $750 million towards the Moreton Bay Link.

As far as I know, NSW Liberal is going it alone with its North West Rail Link, as a Public-Private Partnership (PPP), making it immune to Abbott's announcement. As we will see later, this is an example Barnett could follow.

It may not be a bad idea for Tony Abbott to suggest that urban rail should remain a state responsibility, but he should remain consistent with roads. His pledge of $1.5 billion for the East-West Link, as well as $1.5 billion for the WestConnex in Sydney, is not consistent. He will fund urban roads, but not rail. This makes no sense, as in urban environments, rail offers more capacity than roads, resulting in greater economic benefits, and very little environmental impact. Urban rail is a wiser investment than urban roads.

Adam Bandt, Melbourne Greens MP, had something to say:

''If Tony Abbott is elected, it will be a disaster for inner-city Melbourne. 
''The suburbs that we love and that make Melbourne consistently one of the world's most liveable cities will be turned into a rat's nest of on and off ramps.
''To suggest the federal government doesn't have a role in building public transport in major cities like Melbourne is 19th century thinking.''

The state and federal branches of the Liberal party are at odds with each other when it comes to transport. This is a very important issue, in Perth and in other cities. Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese took Abbott's comments as an opportunity to speak, claiming Abbott had "turned his back on long-suffering commuters":

“After much ducking and weaving, Mr Abbott has again confirmed his and the Coalition’s historical opposition to Federal engagement in urban public transport.

“Such an unbalanced approach would lead to more gridlock, worsening congestion and a poorer quality of life in our cities.

“While today’s announcement is extraordinary, it is not a surprising one. The attitude towards public transport is the great divide in Australian politics between Labor and the Coalition.”

It is not completely accurate to say that the Coalition has a problem with public transport. Many state Liberal branches have attempted to shake their public transport legacy, appearing perfectly happy with public transport. WA and NSW in particular are big advocates of PT. It is the Federal part of the Liberals that dislikes public transport. It has failed to transform into a political option in touch with today and the future, and is still stuck in the past, with a 'more roads' attitude. There is a fracture between State and Federal Liberal evident.

So what options are available for Colin Barnett, and any other state Premier's feeling shafted by Tony Abbott?

Well there is the opportunity for Tony Abbott to leverage his ability to change his mind (what he says is 'not always gospel truth'), and backflip on urban rail, to save a few fellow Liberals.

In the absence of that, there are still other avenues. States can build rail without Federal help, to follow NSW's example. If the states cannot fund rail from their own pockets, they can enter into a PPP, or otherwise employ the large land value gains around train stations.

As a train station is built, land near it becomes much more desirable, due to the benefits of convenient public transport. There is a natural tendency to build TODs near train stations. Governments can tap into this with land value capture, though various taxes allowing the government to get a cut of any land value gains, since they paid for the rail infrastructure causing the gain.

Professor Peter Newman of Curtin University is a proponent of land value capture. He believes that the whole cost of rail projects could potentially be funded through a land tax around stations.

"I don't think [Mr Barnett] has any alternative. Having Federal involvement will make it happen quicker, but no Federal involvement will propel us into doing more with value capture - using land around the train line to help fund it."

Funding options Professor Newman proposes in his Three Mode Plan include taxes (10% rate) on the increased value of residential and commercial properties, fees for commercial ($5 per working day) and retail ($5 day), and a 1% tax on the value of land sales around train stations.

In short, transport politics is getting interesting.

Sources -
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/04/07/whats-your-problem-with-public-transport-mister-abbott/
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/abbott-comment-throws-doubt-on-rail-road-funding-20130405-2hcen.html
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/16550551/state-rail-projects-in-danger-of-unravelling/
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/opposition-leader-tony-abbott-backtracks-on-2010-election-promise-taking-brisbane-cross-river-rail-off-list/story-fndo4ckr-1226612810700
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/barnett-should-look-to-private-sector-to-fund-rail-20130405-2hbdd.html

The case for metros and tiering

Train systems in Australia often come as one product to serve a whole metropolitan area, which I think is best described as a suburban railway. This means that governments only have to maintain one rail-based product, saving resources, but this can cause problems as cities grow and public transport use grows faster than population.
To make trains attractive to suburban passengers, railway lines often skimp on stop spacing in inner areas to get passengers from the suburbs to the CBD quicker. This does not serve inner city areas adequately, even of there is already a railway line in the area. For example, the Mandurah line does not make any stops between the city and Canning Bridge, despite passing through dense or significant areas like South Perth or Como.

To deal with overcrowding capacity can be increased by measures that make use of existing rolling stock such as replacing seating with space for standees, such as longitudinal seating (along the sides rather than in pairs). However, this is unpopular with long distance commuters from suburban areas to the CBD who may be forced to stand for long periods of time. This seating is already common on A series trains, which do not serve far destinations except for the Armadale Line, but this modification is present at the ends of B-series trains, and is being rolled out on other parts of those sets, which are used on the 70 km Mandurah Line as well as the 30 km Joondalup Line, which is constantly extended to follow suburbia.
The solution here is to split the suburban railway into two rail modes; the metro for inner areas, and the commuter railway for outer areas. Metros will have close stop spacing to serve inner suburbs thoroughly. Their use will be higher and service will be more frequent (TUAG) because inner areas are more conducive to public transport use, being built when cars were not available or not widely used. The trains may be driverless, or operated automatically by computer, to provide this service cheaply, and will feature full longitudinal seating, because average trip length will be shorter.
On the other hand, commuter rail will have much wider stop spacing, for quick journeys from the outer suburbs to the city centre. Their frequency will be dictated by levels of use, which likely aren't as high as further in. But, of course, users of commuter rail will usually get a comfy seat.
Perth is part-way there, with the two tiers operating on the Armadale corridor (commuter to Armadale, metro to Thornlie) Monday to Saturday 6am to 12am, and supplemented on Sundays by an all stops service to Armadale. However, the rollingstock is still the same on both lines, the metro section (at least) should be grade separated, and of course the tiering should be full time, with the Thornlie line a bit more frequent.
The Midland and Fremantle lines are probably short enough to be metros, despite the express running in the peak, but again, grade separation is needed, and frequency could be better.
The Clarkson and Mandurah lines have inner tiers to Whitfords and Cockburn Central operating on the peak shoulder (formerly off-peak and the height of the peak before service cuts and fleet expansion respectively). This is completely grade separated but the stations are in freeway medians, and so are widely spaced and pedestrian/bike-unfriendly, the tier is part-time only and frequency needs a boost.

Why Park n' Ride isn't the answer

Park n’ Rides, or stations with large amounts of car parking, are usually considered good public transport policy. They encourage public transport usage in low density regions. Perth has them at most new stations, and we’re not doing too badly from them. However, maybe we could be better off with a different strategy.

Park n’ rides consume large amounts of land and discourage walk-up patronage. While our Park n’ Rides are mostly at freeway stations on the Joondalup and Mandurah Lines, where walking to the station is already hard, the large parking lots surely aren’t helping. There is also insatiable demand for them, just like roads. They often fill up in the morning peak, so they encourage peak usage over off peak usage. Instead of replacing car usage with PT usage, it lets car usage continue along with PT, which is an easy and fairly good outcome for now but not optimal.

In place of these alienating Park n’ Rides we could allow residential and commercial development, or TOD (Transit-oriented development), buildings that will generate much more traffic that is also more balanced than in Park n’ Rides, while earning money rather than costing money. To compensate for the loss of the car park feeder buses should be run much more frequently.

We could also place Park n’ Rides just beyond walking distance of the station (about 400m for most people) where the attraction of the station is lesser and so land cheaper, with links to the station by feeder bus. This would be the best of both worlds, but it would be difficult to get the land in our existing suburbs because it would probably be housing, and new suburbs should be optimised for walking, cycling and taking a feeder bus to the station, so large Park n' Rides aren't necessary.

In conclusion, we should reduce our dependence on Park n' Rides, although the idea suggested in the last paragraph of car parks beyond walking distance of the station deserves consideration.