For our city, it strongly argues for a more compact settlement model and transportation pricing reforms. However, it has some substantial weaknesses.
Integrate land use and transport priorities
The report’s discussion of the need for a more compact city is impressive, but it is caught in the same trap as the government’s criticism of state governments that fail to fully integrate land use development directions and transportation priorities.
The Infrastructure Prioritization List is very light in supporting the development of Australia’s four major cities as a more compact city, not just a core compact city.
For example, although many public transportation projects are included, these projects are mainly railway projects focusing on the supply of central business districts. These are valuable projects that will improve services and promote agglomeration economies. However, they only cover a part of the overall public transport needs of developing a more compact city.
The report clearly recognizes that our cities will require a wider range of public transport services. It includes railway projects in some growth areas and rapid transit of buses in some areas. However, it does not pay enough attention to public transportation, walking and cycling projects, which will help the central suburbs to realize their potential.
If our cities are to become more compact, these areas will require more employment and residential development. Supportive infrastructure, especially public transport and active transport, is at the heart of this goal.
Another example of failure to fully integrate land use and transportation ideas is the discussion of providing services to the suburbs of our cities.
One of the main reasons for the problem of infrastructure and service delivery in these areas is that their development density is too low. However, I did not mention the need to increase the density of external urban areas. This will help address issues such as improving public transport services and associated cost recovery rates.
Urban governance
There are some useful discussions in the plan on governance issues, but it is also an important loophole.
The international dialogue on cities now emphasizes the importance of someone who can “speak for the city” and have more financial autonomy. These issues are more important for cities to have the resources to perform their duties more effectively and to be responsible for their performance.
The plan looks at the need to reform local governments, as well as project planning and delivery arrangements, but does not consider central governance issues: “Who speaks for our city?”. This is critical to the common difficulties of our cities in maintaining long-term land use transportation plans.
The obvious answer is the current “state government,” but the recent introduction of the Greater Sydney Council in Sydney is a very innovative step in strengthening national and local government partnerships across the city. This move shows that the right answer needs to be broader than a simple state government. New governance arrangements should be more prominent in the report.
In terms of funding, the report repeatedly quoted London’s views. No better city can be used as a model because its population is the same as what Sydney and Melbourne expected 40 years later – and no one can do better. London has solved the problem of “who speaks for the city.”
Under the leadership of the mayor, London is seeking greater financial autonomy. The city is actively using measures such as value capture to increase its financial autonomy. The plan discusses value capture to some extent, but it needs to pay more attention to this as a huge financing opportunity for more autonomous and responsible cities.
Externality and price reform
From the perspective of public transportation, weak handling of externalities is the biggest problem in the plan.
There is a lot of discussion about crowding and awareness of potential social disadvantages, but there is not much systematic understanding of other externalities of the city, especially traffic externalities. For example, the assumption seems to be:
The agglomeration economy (or a broader range of broader economic interests) will be recognized in some way and treated in some way at an appropriate time;
Greenhouse gas emissions will be dealt with by any matter that Australia decides to fulfil its international obligations;
Vehicle emission standards will be consistent with air pollution externalities; and
Accidents and healthy externalities do not exist or are not important.
This provides little comfort for the proposed pricing reforms. Road pricing reforms are not just about recovering infrastructure costs, but also making drivers aware of congestion costs.
More broadly, the process of determining road infrastructure priorities should ultimately not be transferred to the board of the road funding entity. It should be integrated with the land use and transportation planning contributed by the board. The elected politician should remain the ultimate decision maker for the main work.
Infrastructure planning and integrated planning
The plan’s discussion of long-term infrastructure planning as an “opportunity to increase the value of community engagement” requires a clearer picture of what this means.
If long-term integrated land-use transportation planning is more effectively implemented in Australian cities, we do not need to have separate infrastructure facilities at the federal and state levels.
If the report recommends that communities consult on strategic infrastructure planning, which is separate from what should happen around long-term land-use transportation planning, which is becoming more widespread in international best practice cities, then we will face Very confusing community.
The long-term process of planning integrated land-use transport should be the place for strategic consultation. Infrastructure will be one of the advisory and infrastructure priorities generated by the planning process.
The basic discussion point must be what we want our city to look like after 30 to 40 years. Transport and other infrastructure discussions and priorities should be placed in the context of creating these cities.
The role of the market in public transportation
The plan advocates more competition in providing public transport services.
The cost savings it cites are mainly from the setting of private operators replacing public operators (the more savings, the more bloated the initial public operators are). The international experience is that in the subsequent round of market testing, once the private provider is in place, there will be almost no cost savings.
In addition, a recent study by David Hensher of the University of Sydney’s Institute of Transportation and Logistics shows that if you have an effective private operator operating under a negotiated performance-based contract, this will be as effective as the tender results. The report does not seem to be aware of these important nuances.
Improve policy debate
The Australian infrastructure sector has done a great deal of work in improving the quality of the debate on infrastructure planning and delivery. Its Australian infrastructure program continues this tribute.
However, for our city, unless the Australian infrastructure sector walks on land-use transportation integration, the effectiveness of the program will be affected. It needs to more fully integrate its priorities with its well-targeted land-use development direction and take a broader perspective on price reforms and related funding and governance issues.
https://theconversation.com/australian-infrastructure-plan-has-some-way-to-go-to-give-our-cities-what-they-need-54954