Transport

The Andrews Labor Government is getting on with transforming central Dandenong into a vibrant new residential, retail, and commercial hub.

Minister for Transport Infrastructure Jacinta Allan today announced the Revitali​sing Central Dandenong project has taken another step forward, with the project&rsquo;s next phase draft masterplan released by Melbourne developer Capital Alliance for community feedback, along with design renders to give locals a glimpse of what it will look like.

&ldquo;We encourage locals to have their say on the draft masterplan and will continue to work with them on progressing this project &ndash; which will transform Dandenong and create thousands of jobs at a time our community needs them most,&rdquo; said Minister Allan.

The draft masterplan showcases the proposal for Dandenong and includes creating at least 470 new dwellings, a hotel and conference centre, offices and community spaces. An urban brewery entertainment district will also be built, as well as an education facility, retail, a medical facility, a cinema and dining.

&ldquo;We&rsquo;re proud to share this draft master plan with the community to rejuvenate central Dandenong &ndash; with the project to benefit generations to come,&rdquo; said Capital Alliance Founder and Chief Executive Mohan Du.

To maintain the site&rsquo;s strong cultural identity, the project will also deliver a brand-new Little India precinct. The new Little India will provide more modern facilities and services, as well as better spaces for tenants, and will be built as part of the development&rsquo;s first stage to minimise disruptions to traders.

Construction on the development&rsquo;s first stage is expected to commence in 2023 &ndash; which also includes delivering a supermarket, food market hall and residential building. Capital Alliance will invest $600 million to develop the area next to the Dandenong transport hub &ndash; creating more than 2,600 jobs during construction and close to 5,000 ongoing positions once complete.

The project will complement the Labor Government&rsquo;s transport investments in the south-east, better connecting locals with $15 billion to upgrade the Cranbourne/Pakenham line &ndash; slashing travel times, delivering bigger trains and creating a direct link to Melbourne Airport through the Metro Tunnel.

&ldquo;We&rsquo;re not only delivering more trains, more often to Dandenong &ndash; we&rsquo;re delivering more housing, and jobs for this local area,&rdquo; Du added. &nbsp;

The Government is delivering the Revital​ising Central Dandenong project through Development Victoria, with support from Greater Dand​enong Council.

The Government is delivering the Revitalising Central Dandenong project through Development Victoria, with support from Greater Dand​enong Council.

alisonwarters@gmail.com

Central Dandenong revitalization planned

Reducing your commute by living near a train station does not only make life convenient but it may increase the value of your property.

Melbourne apartments near train stations are becoming great investments for homebuyers seeking to add a premium to their new property.

In Sydney, this premium was recorded at an average of 4.5 per cent for homes within 400 metres of a station, <a href="http://www.luticonsulting.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Sydney-Transit-and-Urban-Renewal-Value-Creation-Report.pdf" target="_blank">according to a study</a> analysing rail projects between 2000 and 2014.

Urban takes a look at seven&nbsp;brand-new, off-the-plan properties that sit within 450 metres of a train station.

1. Chelsworth, Ivanhoe 
Developer: Bensons Property Group 
92 metres from Darebin Station

[smartcode_project:default project_id=3309 project_image_fid=35646]

Chelsworth, a collection of 50 modern apartments in two-bedroom configurations is located just 92 metres from a train station.

The BG-Architecture designed development is a one-minute walk from Darebin Station. &nbsp;

Apartments at Chelsworth offer a sophisticated design, featuring smart and versatile floor plans, custom cabinetry and secure basement parking.

2. Chronicle, Armadale 
Developer: Bensons Property Group 
200 metres from Armadale Station

[smartcode_project:default project_id=2845 project_image_fid=169337]

Another Bensons Property development, Chronicle is strategically located a three-minute walk from Armadale Station.

Set on the highly sought-after High Street, the development offers excellent connectivity and is complemented by a vibrant fashion and lifestyle retail destinations.

Each three-bedroom apartment, designed by CHT Architects, presents an elegant aesthetic with a focus on detail and generous storage

3. FiftyTwo Black, Brighton 
Developer: PB&amp;Co 
290 metres from Middle Brighton Station

[smartcode_project:default project_id=106713 project_image_fid=171910]

Situated 290 metres from Middle Brighton Station, FiftyTwo Black is the peak of luxury and convenience.

Comprising only five crafted residences, furnished exclusively in Ralph Lauren Home, this property features handcrafted brass feature balustrades, marble flooring and iconic Ralph Lauren chandelier lighting.

Just a three-minute walk from the station means residents are a stroll away from Church Street, the shopping, dining and entertainment capital of Bayside.

4. Prospect Apartments, Box Hill 
Developer: R&amp;F Property 
300 metres from Box Hill Station

[smartcode_project:default project_id=3516 project_image_fid=153756]

Set to become a modern landmark of the domain, Prospect&rsquo;s location is arguably the finest in Box Hill &ndash; within arm&rsquo;s reach of a culturally rich dining scene, leading educational facilities, hospitals, shopping centres and public transport.

Residents are located nearby Box Hill Central, Coles and a range of lifestyle and entertainment offerings. 
The tower also includes a range of communal amenities, including a pool, a gymnasium, an outdoor entertainment and barbecue area, and an expansive dining room and kitchen.

5. Canvas, Brunswick 
Developer: ID_Land 
350 metres from Jewell Station

[smartcode_project:default project_id=29358 project_image_fid=85960]

Cut to fit into the mosaic of Barkly Street, Canvas&rsquo; fa&ccedil;ade pays homage to Brunswick&rsquo;s industrial past.

These spacious apartments are located just 350-metres from Jewell Station, a quick five-minute walk away.

The apartments also boast no gas connection, making them 100 per cent fossil fuel free, while communal gardens, rooftop rain water and solar PV offsetting makes sustainable living easy.

6. Ballarat Street, Brunswick 
Developer: Assemble 
350 metres from Brunswick Station

[smartcode_project:default project_id=94542 project_image_fid=160730]

The current factory site at 4 Ballarat Street, Brunswick will be converted by architecture firm Fieldwork to home 171 studio, one, two and three-bedroom apartments.

Assemble&rsquo;s rent-with-the-option-to-buy apartment development is located four minutes from Brunswick Station and boasts a range of convenient resident amenities.

These include a multi-purpose workshop, crafts space, communal laundry, barbeque area and rooftop pavilion.

7. Omnia, Moorabbin 
Developer: Shenfield Property 
450 metres from Moorabbin Station

[smartcode_project:default project_id=29048 project_image_fid=80698]

Designed by Roger Brayshaw Architects and delivered by Shenfield Property, this collection of brand-new residences defines modern comfort.

Located in the thriving community of Moorabbin, convenient transport options are abound, placing you into the Melbourne CBD within 25 minutes.

Moorabbin Station is just a six-minute walk away, while park frontage, inspired design and a diversity of layouts makes Omnia one not to miss.

Urban takes a look at seven brand-new, off-the-plan properties that sit within 450 metres of a train station

max.kwok_55688

Seven brand-new Melbourne apartments and townhomes within 450m from a train station

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) <a href="https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Pages/bocsar_media_releases/2019/mr-Impact-lockouts-on-the-CBD.aspx" target="_blank">recently claimed</a> Sydney’s alcohol licensing regulations, commonly known as <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/lockout-laws-26282" target="_blank">lockout laws</a>, reduced non-domestic assaults by 13% in the CBD.
Its calculation relied on a decision to allocate 1,837 of these offences to both Kings Cross and the CBD – that is, double-counting the data.
<a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/submissions/63631/Submission%20734%20-%20Centre%20for%20Translational%20Data%20Science,%20University%20of%20Sydney.pdf" target="_blank">Our analysis</a> found this decision was critical to the conclusion that assaults decreased in the CBD. For every other choice about the areas to which offences data were allocated and type of analysis we found no decrease.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298452/original/file-20191024-119433-7qnb4k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Map of Sydney and the entertainment precincts as used by BOCSAR in its analysis: blue – CBD entertainment precinct; red – Kings Cross entertainment precinct; green – nearby displacement areas; yellow – outer displacement areas.
<a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/submissions/63631/Submission%20734%20-%20Centre%20for%20Translational%20Data%20Science,%20University%20of%20Sydney.pdf%5D" target="_blank">Our findings</a> highlight an important question: how do the choices of data collection, pre-processing and analysis affect policy decisions?
The allocation of crimes to areas is just one of several choices made when using data to assess policy impacts. Other choices include how to measure violent crime, what time period to consider and the geographical extent of the areas to include. The question is: if other choices were made, would the results affect a <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-08/sydney-lockout-laws-rolled-back/11489806" target="_blank">decision to repeal or continue the laws</a>?
Our findings point to the need to follow a couple of principles when using data to inform policymaking. First, the institution that collects data and the institution that analyses the data should be independent of each other. Second, we need as much transparency about the data and its analysis as possible.
<h2>So what exactly did the analyses show?</h2>
BOCSAR chose to use monthly non-domestic assaults from 2009 onwards. There is nothing wrong with these choices, but others could have been made.
For instance, why from 2009 onwards, not from 2005? Why monthly, not daily? Why reported non-domestic assaults, not reported assaults causing grievous bodily harm? Why divide the area into the CBD and Kings Cross only?
One way of assessing the impact of such choices is to use different subsets of data, different types of data pre-processing and different statistical and/or machine-learning techniques. If the conclusion still remains the same, then our decision is robust to this source of variability. If not, we need to understand why.
For the Kings Cross precinct, the analysis by the Centre for Translational Data Science at the University of Sydney showed the conclusion remained unchanged irrespective of the frequency and period over which data were collected and the analysis performed. Non-domestic assaults had declined following the introduction of the lockout laws in 2014.
For the CBD the reverse was true. Only if we make exactly the same choices as BOCSAR, in particular allocating 1,837 crimes to both the CBD and King Cross, could we conclude non-domestic assaults had decreased very slightly.
Under all other variations of the analyses, including data, methodology and spatial allocation of that data, we found no decrease. Non-domestic assaults in the CBD had been decreasing since 2008 and, if anything, more slowly after the lockout laws took effect.
So why was the inclusion of 1,837 crimes so critical to the conclusions about the CBD?
Using data provided by BOCSAR, we plotted the most likely location of those 1,837 crimes. Figure 1 shows these crimes occurred mainly in Kings Cross, an area in which the crime rate had fallen since 2014. We say “most likely location” because we have yet to receive the additional data we requested from BOCSAR to help us locate exactly where these crimes occurred.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298427/original/file-20191023-119429-qgf5xh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298427/original/file-20191023-119429-qgf5xh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> Counts of crimes (per SA1 region) that were assigned to both the CBD and Kings Cross. Centre for Translational Data Science, Author provided
With the removal of those 1,837 crimes from the CBD, we detected no decrease in non-domestic assaults. But BOCSAR apparently did. After removing those crimes from the CBD, BOCSAR released an <a href="https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/2019-Report-Effect-of-lockout-and-last-drinks-laws-on-assaults-BB142.pdf" target="_blank">updated report</a> to a <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/listofcommittees/Pages/committee-details.aspx?pk=260" target="_blank">parliamentary inquiry into Sydney’s night-time economy</a>. This report claimed assaults in the CBD decreased by 4% (much less than the original 13%).
The committee then asked for our <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/other/12591/Centre%20for%20Translational%20Data%20Science.pdf" target="_blank">comments</a>. We found the report did not provide a confidence interval for this decrease. Yet the report made a virtue of reporting uncertainty estimates for other quantities and elsewhere it claimed “statistically significant” results.
We replicated BOCSAR’s analysis and found the change in crime could have been as low as a 12% decrease and as high as a 6% increase. In other words, the result is “statistically insignificant”.
<h2>What are the implications for making policy?</h2>
Why does this matter? There are two reasons.
First, the danger in not explaining, quantifying and reporting uncertainty is that the public loses trust in data-driven policymaking. Only if conclusions acknowledge and explain the uncertainty inherent in inferring complex quantities from data can we make robust and explainable policy decisions that build trust with the public.
Second, if we don’t accept and report uncertainty we could stop looking for other explanations. We might then fail to achieve an outcome that everyone wants: a reduction in violence and a healthy night-time economy.
How do we proceed from here? We’d make two recommendations:
<ol>
<li>
The institution that collects and curates the data should be distinct, informed but independent from the institution/s that analyse the data.
</li>
<li>
There should be as much data transparency as possible, which would enable different groups to perform different types of analyses, using different sources of data.
</li>
</ol>
We are almost certain these different groups would produce different findings, but the subsequent discussion could provide insights that move us closer to more robust and acceptable policy decisions.
To <a href="https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/08/27/richard-feynman-on-the-role-of-scientific-culture-in-modern-society/" target="_blank">quote</a> Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman:
If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives … to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.
The <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/inquiries/2519/Report%20-%20Sydneys%20night%20time%20economy.pdf" target="_blank">parliamentary committee’s recommendation</a> that BOCSAR and the Centre for Translational Data Science work together more closely appears to do just that. We look forward to an ongoing collaboration to further our understanding of the drivers of violent crime.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125227/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sally-cripps-857344" target="_blank">Sally Cripps</a>, Professor of Statistics, Director of Centre for Translational Data Science, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841" target="_blank">University of Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/roman-marchant-365741" target="_blank">Roman Marchant</a>, Senior research fellow and lecturer, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841" target="_blank">University of Sydney</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/sydney-lockout-laws-review-highlights-vital-role-of-transparent-data-analysis-125227" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Sydney lockout laws review highlights vital role of transparent data analysis

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Taxis have traditionally competed for kerbside space in our cities, but they now have many new competitors. <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805"> </a>
In case you missed it, 2018 was designated the <a href="https://mobilitylab.org/2018/06/08/managing-the-chaos-of-the-21st-century-curb/" target="_blank">Year of the Kerb</a> by Sabrina Sussman, <a href="https://www.zipcar.com/" target="_blank">Zipcar’s</a> public partnerships manager. This is because competition for limited kerb space has been increasing over the past few years, particularly in cities.
The kerb is the place that provides “access” between the street and the footpath. The definition tends to include the lane beyond the kerb that is used for car parking, bus stops, taxi pickups and dropoffs, and loading and unloading goods.
But kerb competition is increasing from a range of new users including: car sharing, ride sharing, e-scooter share, bike share and e-bike share, food delivery, online order deliveries and, in coming years, autonomous vehicles.
And this increasing focus on the kerb is highlighted in recent reports by the <a href="https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/complete-streets/curbside-management-resources/" target="_blank">Institute of Traffic Engineers</a>, the <a href="https://www.itf-oecd.org/shared-use-city-managing-curb-0" target="_blank">International Transport Forum</a> and North America’s National Association of City Transportation Officials (<a href="https://nacto.org/tsdg/curb-appeal-whitepaper">NACTO</a>).
With this range of new users, cities need to rethink how they manage this contested real estate. Without better kerb management, cities will face increased congestion on local streets from vehicles circulating to access the kerb and on footpaths from a range of shared mobility devices.
One change cities will need to make to accommodate these new users is to repurpose kerb space, which has traditionally been used for parking, to other uses. This change will most likely have a significant financial impact.
<a href="https://www.wired.com/story/city-planning-curbs/" target="_blank">One survey</a> of the 25 largest US cities found parking-related revenues totalled US$5 billion in 2016, or about US$129 per person. While repurposing kerb space will not affect all of this revenue, it will have an impact on city budgets. To minimise this impact, cities will need to think about if, and how, to charge new users of kerb space.
To manage kerbs, first identify the uses
The City of Seattle is one of the leaders in kerb management. The city categorised kerb use into six key functions:
<ol>
<li>
mobility for travel lanes, bike lanes and bus lanes
</li>
<li>
access for people using bus stops, bike parking and loading zones
</li>
<li>
access for commerce to deliver goods
</li>
<li>
activation for <a href="https://theconversation.com/people-love-parklets-and-businesses-can-help-make-them-happen-87172" target="_blank">small parks</a>, food trucks and public art
</li>
<li>
greening for plantings, rain gardens and bio-swales
</li>
<li>
storage for parking, bus layovers and construction.
</li>
</ol>
One of the first in-depth analyses of the kerb was in San Francisco. As part of <a href="https://www.fehrandpeers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SF_Curb_Study_2018-10-19_web-download.pdf" target="_blank">this 2018 study</a>, commissioned in 2018 by Uber Technologies, the consultants (Fehr and Peers) developed a Curb Productivity Index (CPI). The index considered three things to compare productivity of kerb use.
<ol>
<li>
number of passengers using kerb space by mode
</li>
<li>
time period the activity was observed
</li>
<li>
total space dedicated to that use.
</li>
</ol>
How to calculate kerb productivity
The CPI is a useful way of quantifying the various competing uses for the kerb.
It’s calculated by dividing the amount of activity by the amount of space used, multiplied by the unit of time. For example, the CPI for a bus stop that uses 45 metres of kerb for 250 arriving and departing passengers over four hours would be: 250 passengers/(45 metres x 4 hours), or 1.39 passengers/metre-hours.
Alternatively, the CPI for a car space that uses five metres of kerb that services two passengers over four hours would be: 2 passengers/(5 metres x 4 hours), or 0.1 passengers/metre-hours.
The CPI shows a bus stop is 13.9 times (1.39/0.1) more productive than a car park.
This analysis of usage data provides some rigour in developing a kerb management plan.
Base management on ‘measurement over myth’
As a way forward, <a href="https://www.fehrandpeers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SF_Curb_Study_2018-10-19_web-download.pdf" target="_blank">Fehr and Peer recommend</a> a management strategy with three components:
<ol>
<li>
relocation of existing kerb uses to other areas
</li>
<li>
conversion, which involves eliminating some current uses and replacing them with new uses
</li>
<li>
flexibility, so kerb uses change depending on the time of day.
</li>
</ol>
Trials of flexible kerb management are under way in Washington DC, San Francisco and Fort Lauderdale.
In changing how the kerb is managed, the <a href="https://nacto.org/tsdg/curb-appeal-whitepaper/" target="_blank">2018 report</a> from North America’s National Association of City Transportation Officials recommends a “measurement over myth” strategy when converting parking to other uses.
Surveys on arrival mode consistently show public transport and active travel modes deliver more customers to adjacent businesses than private motor vehicles. <a href="https://www.torontocycling.org/uploads/1/3/1/3/13138411/cycling_economies_eglinton_final.pdf" target="_blank">Before-and-after studies</a> confirm that replacing parking with public transport or bike lanes increases sales for area businesses.
To manage the conflicting needs of car and bike users for roadside space, San Jose has created kerbside bike lanes separated from the road by car parking. <a class="source" href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.flickr.com/photos/willbuckner/45885808941"> </a>
While new mobility startups are part of the reason cities need to develop kerb management plans, other startups are developing new ways to manage this increasingly contested space. Some of these new companies include:
<ul>
<li>
<a href="https://www.coord.co/post/open-curbs-the-first-open-data-multi-city-platform-to-unlock-curbs" target="_blank">Open Curbs</a> from <a href="https://www.coord.co/" target="_blank">Coord</a>, a spin-off of <a href="https://www.sidewalklabs.com/" target="_blank">Sidewalk</a>, that provides wheelchair cuts, fire hydrants, bus stops and other physical kerb assets
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.populus.ai/" target="_blank">Populus</a>, a San Francisco transport company that has developed a mobility manager that provides data on e-scooter and e-bike share parking data
</li>
<li>
Remix, which has developed the <a href="https://www.remix.com/new-mobility" target="_blank">New Mobility tool</a> to analyse and visualise data-streaming feeds.
</li>
</ul>
These startups have raised millions of dollars, due in part to the recognised value of the kerb.
Cities need to make the transition from parking cities to pickup/dropoff cities and to flexible cities. For this to happen, cities will need to think strategically about how to manage their kerbs with the emergence of new users and new mobility management options.
One of the first steps in this transition is for cities to ensure data standards and data-sharing arrangements are established as part of the basis for giving new users permission to access the kerb.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/neil-sipe-346144" target="_blank">Neil Sipe</a>, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805" target="_blank">The University of Queensland</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/competition-for-the-kerb-is-rising-and-cities-are-going-to-have-to-manage-it-117410" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Competition for kerb is rising, cities have to manage it: Neil Sipe

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Transport models are often singled out as a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967070X16306606" target="_blank">barrier</a> to providing more sustainable and equitable transport services. However, abandoning transport models would <a href="https://transportfutures.co/in-defence-of-predict-and-provide-1b990a6566fa" target="_blank">most likely weaken planning</a>, not enhance it. But getting the best out of such modelling requires transparency to overcome the increasing problem of its misuse to justify predetermined political decisions.
On the 50th anniversary of the Melbourne Transportation Plan, we review the role of transport modelling as a planning tool. What are models now telling us about the future of Australian cities?
From rational planning …
The 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan was based on the <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0739456X9001000105" target="_blank">Chicago Area Transportation Plan</a>, an approach that other Australian cities then adopted. A feature was the extensive collection of travel data, often for the first time. Newly available computer models were then used to predict travel demand, which the plan sought to accommodate.
This is often referred to as the “rational” or “predict and provide” approach to transport planning.
By today’s standards, the goals of the ’69 plan sound like a utopian dream of free-flowing freeways and frequent, comfortable public transport services. It assumed a population living in detached housing on quarter-acre blocks.
Melbourne’s “solution”, and that of many other cities, was to build an extensive freeway network. The car took over from the rail system as the primary mode of travel.
Today’s reality shows this has been no solution to the seemingly intractable problems of congestion and overcrowding, coupled with inequitable access to services, jobs and other opportunities.
… to political mandates
In response, it seems Australian transport agencies have abandoned the preparation of comprehensive transport plans. Gone are the days of foreshadowing projects decades into the future, with land for these road and rail projects being reserved in the planning scheme.
We <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-hardly-ever-trust-big-transport-announcements-heres-how-politicians-get-it-right-101246" target="_blank">operate in an era where political mandates</a> have replaced comprehensive planning. Transport models are no longer used to plan for the future. Instead, they are used to justify the most recent announcement.
The nexus between transport models and the justification of controversial projects results in much critical commentary. The models become guilty by association.
It is true model outputs are far from infallible. One problem is that models depend on key input assumptions such as future population. The ’69 plan, for example, assumed Melbourne would reach a population of 3.7 million by 1985, but this didn’t occur until 20 years later.
The early models also <a href="https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/managing-traffic-congestion?section=" target="_blank">ignored the problem of induced demand</a> – the tendency of new transport infrastructure itself to generate additional demand.
Aside from the inherent challenge of predicting the future, models suffer from the problem of “strategic misrepresentation” – more simply, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/833099" target="_blank">lying</a>. This can occur when models are called upon to justify a predetermined political decision.
The best safeguard against such behaviour is transparency. This is achieved by making the detailed modelling results available for peer review. Under these conditions, models can provide useful planning intelligence.
More of the same is a poor plan
A recent Infrastructure Australia <a href="https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/urban-transport-crowding-and-congestion" target="_blank">report</a> predicts worsening road congestion and public transport crowding over the coming decades in all Australian capitals. These predictions are the result of the lack of endorsed strategies to deal with population growth coupled with Australia’s dependence on the private motor vehicle. Indeed, the report highlights many examples where major new road projects will worsen congestion by encouraging more car use.
A lesson from the past 50 years is that Australia’s major capitals occupy large areas by world standards and are ill suited to a transport strategy based on <a href="https://chartingtransport.com/2011/08/20/whats-happening-with-car-occupancy/" target="_blank">low-occupancy vehicles</a>. It isn’t surprising “Europeanesque” inner suburbs based around walking, cycling and public transport are increasingly <a href="https://www.pwc.com.au/press-room/2018/citypulse-melbourne" target="_blank">valued</a> as preferred places to live.
Can modelling be blamed for our collective failure to devise a realistic plan to accommodate our cities’ growing populations? At what point does the reality of everlasting congestion trump predictions of incremental travel time savings?
US President Dwight Eisenhower once <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-national-defense-executive-reserve-conference" target="_blank">said</a>: “Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.” Intuitively we know the pressure of population growth and the climate emergency demand a considered response. The recent work of Infrastructure Australia provides a prediction of the scale of this challenge.
We urgently need a sensible discussion about developing a realistic plan to deal with this challenge. Doing more of the same, as we have done over the past 50 years, doesn’t sound like a solution to us.
A public event to mark the 50th anniversary of the Melbourne Transportation Plan will be held on December 12 2019, hosted by RMIT University and supported by Swinburne University, Monash University and the University of Melbourne – <a href="https://cur.org.au/events/looking-back-and-going-forward-the-melbourne-transport-plan-50-years-on/">details here</a>.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127720/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Eric Keys, PhD Researcher, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University.
Chris De Gruyter, Vice-Chancellor's Research Fellow, RMIT University.
Graham Currie, Professor of Public Transport, Director Public Transport Research Group, Director Monash Infrastructure, Adjunct Professor, Monash Art Design and Architecture, Monash University.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-transport-models-is-political-abuse-not-their-use-in-planning-127720">original article</a>.
</body></html>

The problem with transport models is political abuse, not their use in planning

<html><body>
The third stage of the Gold Coast's light rail project has been approved after securing extra Federal funding to the tune of $157 million. The total Federal Government contribution to the project will total $269 million with the Queensland Government set to contribute $351 million and the Gold Coast City Council contributing $89 million. From the existing southern terminus at Broadbeach, the Stage 3A extension will utilise the Gold Coast Highway median and include an extra 8 stops along the 7km of new tram track to be built.

Upon completion, Mermaid Beach, Miami and Burleigh Heads will be connected to Broadbeach, Surfers Paradise, Southport, and the tram-train interchange at Helensvale by rail for the first time.

A media release from the Prime Minister and Queensland Premier states that the project will create more than 760 jobs during construction.

The investment in the Gold Coast Light Rail extension project sits beside other initiatives in Queensland including the Federal government contributing $50 billion to the relocation of Loganlea station as well as various road upgrades around the state.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" scrolling="no" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ltnQyCVHu8g" width="100%"></iframe>

There are several projects already in the pipeline along the path of the light rail extension project.

Together Mermaid Beach, Miami and Burleigh Heads have several apartment and townhouse projects either underway or waiting for the go-ahead, including the multi-tower <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/elegance-2605-gold-coast-highway-mermaid-beach">Elegance project</a> located at the existing Broadbeach South light rail terminus and the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/sandbar-burleigh-1969-1971-gold-coast-highway-burleigh-heads">Sandbar Burleigh</a> project that is located near the new Christine Avenue stop.

Not to be outdone by other suburbs, the bulk of the Gold Coast's pipeline of higher-density residential and commercial projects are located in the arc spanning Southport, Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach.  

<iframe frameborder="0" height="500" scrolling="no" src="https://www.urban.com.au/developments/miami-qld?embeddable=list-map" width="100%"></iframe>

No specific start dates for the extension project were mentioned in media releases from the various levels of government but funding will flow 'immediately' and local Queensland media are reporting the likely start for the extension will be in 2020 with a 3-year construction timeframe. 

Lead image credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G:link">wikipedia</a>
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Gold Coast Light Rail Stage 3A to start soon after securing extra Federal Government funding

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Congestion charging should be introduced in Australia’s largest cities, as Grattan Institute’s latest report shows. 
Our analysis also finds that the people who commute to the Melbourne and Sydney CBDs by driving are two to three times as likely to earn six-figure salaries as other Australian workers.
One of the main concerns about charging drivers who use the busiest roads at the busiest times has been about fairness. But sensible congestion charges could be designed to avoid burdening financially vulnerable people who lack alternatives to using particular roads at busy times.
Congestion charging is gaining traction in cities around the world as a proven method to manage congestion. <a href="https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08047/02summ.htm" target="_blank">London, Singapore, Stockholm</a> and <a href="https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/09/milan-abruptly-suspended-congestion-pricing-and-traffic-immediately-soared/404521/" target="_blank">Milan</a> all have congestion charging schemes. New York City legislators have approved plans to introduce it in <a href="https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-05-30/new-york-city-gets-nations-first-congestion-pricing-plan" target="_blank">Manhattan</a>.
It’s better than building new infrastructure
Sydney and Melbourne are big, global cities, but with growth and prosperity comes congestion. The solution from the <a href="https://theconversation.com/transport-promises-for-election-2019-the-good-the-bad-and-the-downright-ugly-115138" target="_blank">federal</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-nsw-election-promises-on-transport-add-up-112531" target="_blank">New South Wales</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-will-voters-pay-for-an-early-christmas-eight-charts-that-explain-victorias-transport-election-106782" target="_blank">Victorian governments</a> has been to throw money at huge infrastructure projects. Politicians like promising infrastructure because large benefits can be targeted at key voters, while <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/roads-to-riches/" target="_blank">the costs are spread across all taxpayers</a>.
But this means many people are paying to alleviate some people’s congestion. And the relief from new infrastructure tends to be short-lived. In Australia’s fast-growing cities, extra public transport capacity at peak times gets chewed up quickly, while new freeways tend to fill with new traffic soon after opening.
This doesn’t mean governments should stop investing in infrastructure. But it does raise the question of whether spending billions of taxpayer dollars is the best or fairest way to tackle congestion.
We usually think of congestion as a force that slows us down, without thinking about how we slow everyone else around us. Congestion charging fixes this by charging a modest fee to use the busiest roads. Drivers then have to decide whether it’s worth making their trip at that time on that road.
Drivers who need to travel at peak times are always able to do so – they just need to pay a fee. Heavy users will end up paying more for using an in-demand resource. The most flexible drivers will save money by travelling later, or elsewhere, or by another mode. And this means getting out of everybody else’s way.
Charging is also fairer than the licence-plate approach of Mexico City or Beijing, where cars are banned from driving on certain days depending on their licence plate numbers. These heavy-handed restrictions ignore the fact that people’s travel needs vary from day to day. Why ban a driver on the day of a job interview?
But what about all the drivers on low incomes?
It’s fair to ask whether congestion charging will burden the most vulnerable people in society. And the answer depends on the design of the scheme.
First, the people who we should really worry about are those who: are struggling financially; frequently or urgently need to travel on charged roads or to a charged area; and lack good alternatives to driving at that time on those roads.
A sensible congestion charge would target only the busiest roads and areas – think central business districts (CBDs), major freeways and key arterial routes – and only at times of high demand such as peak hour.
So if Sydney or Melbourne were to introduce a peak-period congestion charge around their CBDs, how many vulnerable people would be affected? Hardly any.
Our research shows the drivers who would pay the charge tend to be doing just fine. It’s mostly commuters and people driving as part of their job – think tradespeople and couriers. Those travelling for work could pass the cost on to their customers – every tradie driving to the CBD would face the same charge, so no one would gain or lose a competitive advantage. 
Most CBD drivers are well-off
And the CBD commuters? They tend to earn much more than the typical Australian.
Grattan Institute analysis shows most people driving to the Sydney CBD for work each day earn six-figure salaries. Their median income is nearly A$2,500 a week – about A$1,000 a week more than the typical income for full-time workers in Sydney.
It’s a similar story in Melbourne. The median full-time worker driving to the CBD earns nearly A$2,000 a week – about A$650 more than the typical full-time worker in Melbourne.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296601/original/file-20191011-188835-frfve2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip" target="_blank">Click here</a> to enlarge: 
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296601/original/file-20191011-188835-frfve2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296601/original/file-20191011-188835-frfve2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
And these CBD commuters are also generally well-served by public transport. The CBD is the most accessible location in Sydney and Melbourne, with multiple train lines and bus or tram routes running through it.
That’s why most people travel to the CBD by public transport. In Sydney, barely one in six full-time CBD workers actually commute by private vehicle. In Melbourne, it’s only a quarter. But these workers typically earn a lot more than the people on CBD-bound buses, trams and trains.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296358/original/file-20191010-188823-11gu703.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip" target="_blank">Click here</a> to enlarge: 
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296358/original/file-20191010-188823-11gu703.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296358/original/file-20191010-188823-11gu703.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/why-its-time-for-congestion-charging" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a>, Author provided
Perhaps surprisingly, drivers to the CBD are more likely to come from inner, richer parts of the city – think Mosman and Double Bay, not Penrith or Parramatta. It’s the same in Melbourne: more people drive from Kew and Richmond than Broadmeadows or Dandenong. Even those driving in from lower-income areas typically earn more than most of their neighbours.
This means the number of genuinely disadvantaged people who would be burdened by a congestion charge is small. As for one-off trips to the CBD – maybe for a specialist appointment – these are by definition infrequent and can often be rescheduled to the middle of the day.
State governments should consider discounts for low-income people with impaired mobility. However, wide-ranging exemptions would badly undermine the effectiveness of the congestion charge – <a href="https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/04/londons-congestion-charge-needs-updating/557699/" target="_blank">as happened in London</a>.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296357/original/file-20191010-188792-2qbjjm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip" target="_blank">Click here</a> to enlarge: 
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296357/original/file-20191010-188792-2qbjjm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296357/original/file-20191010-188792-2qbjjm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/why-its-time-for-congestion-charging" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a>, Author provided
Congestion charging is a smarter way to improve Australia’s largest cities and fears that it would be unfair are overblown. It should be the centrepiece of a mixed strategy to tackle congestion. The NSW and Victorian governments should introduce <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mg748jat-metro-mcla.36?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">cordon charging</a> around the CBDs of their capitals within the next five years.
Marion Terrill, Transport and Cities Program Director, Grattan Institute.
James Ha, Associate, Grattan Institute.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-why-congestion-charging-is-fairer-than-you-might-think-124894" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Why congestion charging is fairer than you might think: Grattan Institute 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Election season means transport season: just as the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-nsw-election-promises-on-transport-add-up-112531" target="_blank">New South Wales</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-will-voters-pay-for-an-early-christmas-eight-charts-that-explain-victorias-transport-election-106782" target="_blank">Victorian</a> elections gave us massive new transport promises, so too is the federal government relying on the enduring popularity of new roads and rail. But look beyond the rhetoric and the past three years have been largely business as usual. That leaves plenty of room for the next government, of whatever colour, to take a fresh look at how transport promises are made – and plenty of room to improve.
Last week’s federal budget committed to transport expenditure of <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/bp1/download/bp1_final.pdf" target="_blank">A$7.4 billion in 2019-20</a>, and A$33 billion over the four-year forward estimates period.
The government claims it’s spending a <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/community.htm#transport" target="_blank">record A$100 billion</a> over a decade. Yet the <a href="https://www.billshorten.com.au/2018_budget_reply_canberra_thursday_10_may_2018" target="_blank">opposition claims</a>: “Across the four years of this budget, Commonwealth investment in infrastructure actually falls, from A$8 billion to A$4.5 billion.” And <a href="https://www.afr.com/business/infrastructure/coalition-needs-to-fill-infrastructure-shortfall-20190329-p518u0" target="_blank">Infrastructure Partnerships Australia says</a> recent budgets are down on the long-term average by about A$11 billion over the forward estimates.
How much is the government actually spending?
With such polarised views, who are we to believe?
In reality, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-transport-spending-is-about-par-for-the-course-but-the-pattern-is-unusual-114597" target="_blank">expenditure for 2019-20</a> is absolutely normal. At 0.37% of GDP, it’s close to the midpoint of spending on transport under treasurers Scott Morrison, Joe Hockey and Wayne Swan. In each of the past ten budgets, annual transport spending in the year following the budget has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-transport-spending-is-about-par-for-the-course-but-the-pattern-is-unusual-114597" target="_blank">0.26-0.53% of GDP</a>.
What is different is the extent of promises that lie beyond the forward estimates period. The move to a <a href="https://buildingourfuture.gov.au/assets/documents/10_Year_Infrastructure_Pipeline.pdf" target="_blank">ten-year pipeline of promises</a> might be fine in theory, but an interested elector can rely only on what’s in the budget papers. And from that they would conclude there’s nothing unusual to see here.
A new enthusiasm for equity investments
All these figures concern grants to state governments, which are responsible for transport networks. But, in addition to these grants, the federal government has developed an enthusiasm for funding projects “off-budget”. In the past two years, the Commonwealth made <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/ministerial-statements/2018-19-regional-ministerial-budget-statement.pdf" target="_blank">equity investments</a> of A$9.3 billion in <a href="https://inlandrail.artc.com.au/" target="_blank">Inland Rail</a> and A$5.3 billion in <a href="https://westernsydneyairport.gov.au/" target="_blank">Western Sydney Airport</a>.
The <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/charter-of-budget-honesty-policy-costing-guidelines__trashed/appendix-a-costing-of-measures-and-updating-estimates__trashed" target="_blank">Charter of Budget Honesty</a> states that an investment can be treated as an off-budget equity injection only if the government has a “reasonable expectation” of recovering the investment. In other words, the entity must be expected to make a positive return over time.
But this gives governments a lot of latitude. A positive rate of return is not the same as a commercial one. And there seems little likelihood of commercial returns in either case.
For Inland Rail, it’s no secret that the Australian Rail Track Corporation will <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/economy/barnaby-joyces-inland-rail-revenues-wont-cover-capital-cost-artc-ceo-says-20180219-h0wbvw" target="_blank">never be asked to repay the A$9.3 billion</a>, even when project revenues start to flow in 2025. Let’s hope the finance minister is right to insist there’s no prospect the project will need even more taxpayer support, despite the risks identified in the <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/bp1/bp1.pdf" target="_blank">budget papers themselves</a> and by the Commonwealth <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/ANAO_Report_2017-2018_9.pdf" target="_blank">Auditor-General</a>. With no expectation of repayment, there is no practical difference between this “equity investment” and a grant.
For Western Sydney Airport, the government decided to build the airport itself after Sydney Airport Corporation declined its right to build it. The airport operator said the offer as it stood was “<a href="https://www.afr.com/business/infrastructure/airports/badgerys-creek-deeply-uneconomic-sydney-airport-ceo-kerrie-mather-20170216-gueiq6" target="_blank">deeply uneconomic</a>”. It cited operational, traffic, financial and political risks.
So it’s hard to share the confidence of the then treasurer (and now prime minister), Scott Morrison, when <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/govt-set-to-build-airport-rail-link-with-good-debt-20170427-gvtcmy">he said</a> the new airport will “generate an income stream that’s going to pay for itself”.
In both cases, if a future government ends up writing down the fair value of these assets, this will appear on the balance sheet as a change to “other economic flows”. It won’t be separately identified. Nor will the write-down show up in the underlying cash balance figure that the media spotlight highlights on budget night.
The unavoidable conclusion is that pushing transport spending off-budget seriously diminishes not only the discipline that comes from competing for funds through the budget process, but also transparency in how public money is being spent.
A foray into road pricing is stillborn
In November 2016 the government took an unusually bold step: <a href="https://transportinfrastructurecouncil.gov.au/publications/files/Australian_Government_Response_to_Australian_Infrastructure_Plan_November_2016.pdf" target="_blank">it committed</a> to holding an inquiry into road-user charging. The then minister for urban infrastructure, Paul Fletcher, was in good company. His commitment to commission a review led by an eminent Australian was in response to a <a href="https://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/files/Australian_Infrastructure_Plan.pdf" target="_blank">2016 recommendation</a> from Infrastructure Australia, which invoked a similar <a href="http://competitionpolicyreview.gov.au/files/2015/03/Competition-policy-review-report_online.pdf" target="_blank">recommendation in the 2015 Harper Review</a> of competition policy, which in turn referred to a <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">2014 Productivity Commission recommendation</a>. And the backdrop to all these reports was a <a href="http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/downloads/final_report_part_1/00_afts_final_report_consolidated.pdf" target="_blank">recommendation of the 2010 Henry Tax Review</a>.
But time passed and no eminent person was appointed. More time passed, ministers moved portfolio, and no eminent person was appointed. Finally, in October 2018, current minister Michael McCormack <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/deputy-pm-michael-mccormack-shelves-inquiry-into-road-pricing-20181004-h1688d" target="_blank">declined to commit</a> to the inquiry.
An inquiry is no more than an inquiry, but a non-inquiry is a commitment to the status quo. Roads funding and roads investment are serious topics, and many <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/news-media/speeches/infrastructure-pricing-reform/infrastructure-pricing-reform.pdf" target="_blank">commentators have argued</a> that they are the laggards of regulatory reform.
A change to how road use is funded could significantly alter which roads are funded, what maintenance is done, and how networks are managed. It appears to have been all too much for this government. This task awaits a future government.
The alternative government’s most important promises aren’t the sexy ones about electric vehicles. They are <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/media/1539/2018_alp_national_platform_constitution.pdf" target="_blank">Labor’s promises</a> that Infrastructure Australia should assess projects before the decision to invest, and to release assessed business cases. These promises may sound worthy and a little dull, but in reality they are big and welcome commitments.
Less obvious is how to square them with federal Labor’s promise to advance high-speed rail, or the promise to <a href="https://www.billshorten.com.au/getting_melbourne_s_suburban_rail_loop_on_a_faster_track_sunday_14_october_2018" target="_blank">work with the Victorian premier “to deliver the visionary Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop”</a>. Both of these are massively expensive projects with nothing approaching an assessed and publicly available business case.
It would be a significant improvement if whichever party wins government next month were to commit to, and follow through on, careful assessment of transport gaps and problems, consideration of the various feasible solutions, and rigorous evaluation of the preferred approach. And it’s not enough just to do this; it should be done in public.
Let’s hope.
Marion Terrill, Transport and Cities Program Director, Grattan Institute
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/business-as-usual-record-on-transport-leaves-next-government-plenty-of-room-to-improve-113571" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Business-as-usual record on transport leaves next government plenty of room to improve

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The budget just before an election seems to have a special quality: the transport infrastructure will surely be more plentiful than usual, and carefully chosen to shore up the electoral bulwarks. But don’t get too excited: this year the rhetoric may be big, but the scale of the numbers is nothing unusual. What is different is the pattern of spending over the budget’s four-year forward estimates.
The budget estimates a transport spend of A$7.4 billion for the coming year, 2019-20, and $33 billion over the forward estimates period. The 2019-20 expenditure estimate amounts to 0.37% of GDP – comparable to what we’ve seen in recent years. In fact, governments have spent between 0.26% and 0.53% of GDP under Treasurers Morrison, Hockey and Swan, and Treasurer Frydenberg is no different.
What’s particularly interesting about this budget, though, is that the treasurer is chancing his arm on the medium term.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267093/original/file-20190402-177175-1h08ig9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267093/original/file-20190402-177175-1h08ig9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Usually treasurers leave themselves some wriggle room in the outyears. They can always spend more if the cash is available, and invariably they do. Plus, it gets easier to estimate what will be spent as the time of spending draws closer.
Of course, these days much of the promised spending is further into the future than the forward estimates. The government is touting a $100 billion, ten-year <a href="https://buildingourfuture.gov.au/assets/documents/10_Year_Infrastructure_Pipeline.pdf" target="_blank">Infrastructure Investment Pipeline</a>. There’s money all over the country.
Where does the money go?
Victoria gets particularly big-ticket items in this budget, totalling $6.2 billion, and somewhat more of it within the next four years than other states. In New South Wales, the longer-term package totals $7.3 billion, including $3.5 billion for the Western Sydney north-south rail link as well as a $1.6 billion upgrade to the M1 Pacific Motorway extension to Raymond Terrace.
But if you look at what’s happening within the next four years, a notable larger item is a road safety package, totalling $400 million over four years. The longer-term goal is for this package to cost $2.2 billion.
Some of the other longer-term spending is squarely focused on rural and regional areas. This includes a billion to improve the Princes Highway in NSW, Victoria and SA.
If it all comes to pass, there’s something here for everyone.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114597/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Marion Terrill, Transport and Cities Program Director, Grattan Institute
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/total-transport-spending-is-about-par-for-the-course-but-the-pattern-is-unusual-114597" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Transport

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Transport

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News