infrastructure

Error message

Deprecated function: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in _menu_load_objects() (line 579 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/menu.inc).

Fool’s paradise: ‘independent’ advisers promote lie that transport infrastructure can lead a Covid recovery

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 13/01/2021 - 5:58am in

A recent report for Infrastructure Australia confirms what many suspect – some transport infrastructure projects should be shelved. Yet IA refuses to reassess any transport projects, including those it knows or should know are wrong.


Credit – Unsplash

Covid-19 has changed the world of transport irrevocably. There are substantial fears about remaining ‘Covid safe’ while travelling, especially on public transport, and central city areas are less attractive as places to work or live, to name just a few. As a result:

  • Public transport use is substantially down;
  • Traffic on major roads is substantially down, although it may return to pre-Covid levels;
  • Local transport methods such as cycling have substantially increased;
  • Home deliveries and so on have also increased.

With such major changes in the air, it should be obvious to all that transport infrastructure policy must change and adapt to the new world. Yet there is little sign of that occurring at any level of government. Quite the contrary. Governments are ploughing on with pet projects as if nothing has changed, claiming mega-projects are needed more than ever to ‘create jobs’ – despite major infrastructure being capital, not labour, intensive.

The supposed independent adviser on infrastructure, Infrastructure Australia, adds to this air of unreality by claiming that infrastructure is the key to economic recovery. Yet such claims are quite at odds with a report it recently published.

That report, by respected firm LEK, confirms the suspicions of many outside the infrastructure club. As noted above, demand for transport has declined and changed, and the changes are expected to continue after the pandemic.

While the report did not discuss policy implications of these and the substantial downward revisions in projections for population and economic growth, several stand out:

  1. Transport projects must be reassessed;
  2. New projects must allow flexibility and scalability;
  3. Urban road charging must be introduced to reduce the deleterious effects of road use e.g. road wear and tear, congestion, emissions.

I argued more than six months ago that the pandemic would fundamentally change Australia’s transport needs – the movement of people and goods. The Grattan Institute agreed.

Another reason to reassess transport projects is that Australia doesn’t do enough on areas that are key contributors to social cohesion and economic resilience, including health and education. Significant spending is required at precisely the time that Australia is facing a vastly tougher budgetary situation. It seems obvious that transport projects should drop down the list of government spending priorities.

While the health effects of the pandemic have not been as severe in Australia as elsewhere – or as severe as forecast – the effects of anti-Covid restrictions on the economy and lifestyles have been profound. Covid fear is also a powerful driver of behaviour and will have an enduring effect on transport patterns.

Reassessment of projects

Given the substantially lower forecasts of usage, all major project proposals – and projects that are under way – need to be reassessed. Lower usage translates to lower benefits, which renders uneconomic at least some projects. Many projects will be a larger drain on the public purse because user revenues will be lower.

These reassessments must be conducted in public to ensure public confidence and accountability.  If projects were to be robustly assessed, no doubt many would be redesigned, deferred or cancelled.

Unfortunately, Infrastructure Australia has not done this, nor has it seen fit to revise project assessments – including those it knows or should know are wrong.

The single revision to Infrastructure Australia’s game plan is that it will now assess only those projects whose direct outlays exceed $250 million – up from $100 million.  That meaningless gesture has gone largely unremarked.

Flexibility and scalability

The expected trend of more work and living taking place in suburbs and regions reinforces what should be the basic tenet for transport policy: infrastructure must be interoperable (usable by a variety of vehicles). The need is greatest in rail.

Yet governments have seen fit to ignore this in Australia’s two biggest cities.

Sydney Metro, for example, is designed to prevent interoperability by, for example, having tunnels that are too small for other Sydney trains, and a route that precludes further railways being constructed through the CBD-global arc. This will cause an economic and social disaster far greater than did the other breaks of rail gauge – in the 19th century.

In Melbourne, plans for the airport railway preclude sensible options for improved rail services to such regional cities as Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo.  Regional rail options are far more attractive and likely to be vastly more affordable than the nonsensical proposed suburban ‘loop’, which is destined to be another white elephant.

There remains the abject failure of the Commonwealth – over successive administrations – to advance interoperability for national road and rail routes.

Instead, federal governments have resorted to handing out money to the pet projects of favoured state premiers, resorting to ‘nation-building’ cliches to excuse such hand-outs. In many cases such funding has driven cohesion in national transport backwards.

Urban road charging

In principle, road use charges (per km rate) aim to reduce the deleterious effects of road use – including congestion, local and greenhouse emissions, accidents, loss of amenity, and wear and tear on roads. Most of these effects occur in urban areas.

The imperatives for direct road charging have never been more important than in the Covid world.  The decline in public transport, and the growth in local freight deliveries, augurs badly for reducing transport’s contribution to greenhouse emissions.

For years Dr Mike Keating, Luke Fraser and I have pointed to an enormous excess of road spending over road-related revenues – the opposite to what should be.

Road use is heavily subsidised. The latest official figures show road spending in Australia – in 2018-19 – has outstripped revenues by more than $6 billion.  In today’s dollars, deficits over the previous decade totalled $34 billion. For those wondering why Australia has too many cars: look no further than this spending to the detriment of spending on public transport.

Recovery of the direct financial costs of road building – excluding major costs such as congestion, accident and pollution costs – fell from about 124% at the start of the millennium to just 79% in 2018-19.

As pointed out previously, the culprit is spending on roads. Road revenues – fuel excise, registration fees, stamp duty and so on – actually increased in real terms by 3% over the previous five years and 10% over the decade.

But road spending in real terms has soared. While spending in 2018-19 dropped by 2%, this is on the back of increases of 14% and 9% in the two previous years. Real spending increased by 14% over the previous five years and 20% over the decade – substantially faster than population growth.

Meanwhile, calls get louder for the immediate introduction of road user charging. But what most proponents of such charging don’t tell you is that they are asking motorists and truckers to pay about 25% more than they currently do for road use. Such an option is unacceptable to any Government or community.

The way forward, for the essential introduction of road user charging, is to slash road spending by stopping uneconomic and unwarranted mega projects.

Yet ‘independent’ infrastructure advisers religiously avoid an honest reappraisal of projects, and instead do their bit for our fool’s paradise by promoting the lie that transport infrastructure can lead a Covid recovery.

“Build Back Better” Needs an Agenda for Upward Mobility

Why Biden's "Build Back Better" could make a big difference for what was once the American middle class....charitably assuming he meant it.

A Hard Look at Rent and Rent Seeking with Michael Hudson & Pepe Escobar

An in-depth discussion of financial capitalism versus earlier models and the Chinese and Russian approach, with a focus on the role of rent.

China Retrenches on Belt and Road Initiative as Defaults Rise

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 16/12/2020 - 10:54pm in

More on "Whither China?"

The escalating risk to Australia’s vehicle fleet. Australia applies the brakes again and again.

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 23/11/2020 - 5:57am in

Gas-guzzlers in Europe are quickly becoming a thing of the past – so guess where they’re headed instead.


Credit – Unsplash

The lifespan of the internal combustion engine just got shorter. Last week, the UK announced a ban on selling fossil-fuelled cars from 2030. Across the Channel, green vehicles have been built into coronavirus recovery packages and the only car ads on TV are for hybrids or fully-electric vehicles. Even Uber is adapting; all ridesharing in European cities will be exclusively via electric vehicles within the decade.

As Europe changes gear, Australia remains utterly stalled. We have no mandatory fuel efficiency or greenhouse gas standards for the cars we drive. Almost all other G20 members do, even oil-rich Saudi Arabia. According to one study, the lack of binding fuel economy standards has cost Australian motorists $1 billion in the last three years.

The argument for such an effective policy – that would help save money and the climate – has been made many times before. What has changed is the escalation in global ambition in the last 12 months alone. Seismic shifts in auto manufacturing are threatening to turn Australia’s complacency into a strategic mistake.

If national subsidies have been the EV carrot to date, then it is the EU’s stick that is now turbocharging a revolution. By the end of this year, the EU will fine any auto manufacturers whose average CO2 emissions from vehicles sold in Europe exceed 95 g/km. For perspective, that is roughly half the carbon intensity of Australia’s vehicle fleet. Nevertheless, auto manufacturers are largely on track to meet the new threshold, belatedly pouring €60 million into low-emission technologies, 19 times more investment than last year.

The EU regulations apply to the aggregate intensity of a manufacturer’s total sales. So, while Toyota/Mazda have opted to laboriously chip away at their emissions by hybridising their existing fleet, others have found that selling cars with no emissions at all sufficiently offsets their other models. The all-electric Renault Zoe, for example, will almost singlehandedly achieve the Renault Group’s 2020 compliance. Similarly, Volkswagen will launch its last combustion engine model in 2026.

And consumers are responding. In France, electrified vehicle sales for the month of March quadrupled year-on-year while in Norway (where stricter standards and big subsidies were introduced earlier), EVs reportedly reached 80 percent of September sales. One study suggests that by year’s end, ten percent of new car sales in Europe will be electrified vehicles. Not even coronavirus can stop EVs going mainstream. McKinsey estimates that market penetration has grown despite a drop in overall vehicle sales and is forecasting strong EV growth in both Europe and China.

And here the rubber hits the road. There is an investment stampede towards electric vehicles that has nothing to do with the environment. The world’s manufacturing giants know that whoever wins the electric car race will win the industry’s future. The ultimate humiliation for Europe would be mass imports of Chinese EVs that directly undercut their home-grown carmakers; the EU now openly labels China a “systemic rival”.

For years, China’s strong government incentives have made it the world’s largest EV market with 3.5 million such cars expected on Chinese roads by 2022. China has successfully attracted the lion’s share of green automotive investment – until now. The advent of the EU’s 2020 standards saw 3.5 times more EV investment in Europe than in China. Even Tesla is opening an EV giga-plant just outside Berlin next year. The European Commission is now mulling tougher emissions standards from 2025.

EVs are also sweeping through Japan’s auto sector while strict Californian targets are dragging up US standards by default. Suddenly all the major players have an interest in selling not just more EVs, but fewer fossil-fuelled vehicles, with the latter inevitably dumped onto the only markets too short-sighted to restrict them.

Enter Australia – one of the most car-dependent countries on earth. While the rest of the world offloads their outdated fleets, Australia remains utterly exposed, with no defence against the coming flood of washed up vehicles that will lock us into third-rate technology for decades.

The ultimate tragedy is that clean vehicle standards were tantalisingly close to being bipartisan policy. Until 2019, both major political parties had plans to introduce some kind of emission standard on light vehicles. But then a federal election politicised the issue, culminating in one Senator vowing to “stand by our tradies” and to “save their utes”. The Australian Government has since issued a token, one-page ‘strategy’ for the country’s fleet electrification, vaguely citing “consumer choice” as the only driver.

Worst of all, the hard work on a fuel efficiency standard has already been done. The federal transport department released draft regulations for industry consultation in 2017. It found that even with a mandatory standard of 105g/km (that is, 10g/km softer than the EU’s new rules), Australia would have saved $27.5 billion within 20 years. The benefit-cost ratio was at least 1.86. That proposal would have seen restrictions on the most polluting vehicles phased in from January this year; instead, it is now gathering dust on a Canberra bookshelf somewhere.

With no car industry left to protect, an Australian efficiency standard would amount to a minor tweak to import rules. It is a triple bottom line policy offering sound economic rationale, positive environmental impacts and up to 30 percent cheaper running costs for motorists. On our current path, we will still be driving around Europe’s sloppy seconds long after the UK sells its last fossil-fuelled car. But with the stroke of a pen, the government could bring our vehicle standards into line with the rest of the world.

A fuel efficiency standard is not about Australia leading the clean vehicle transition – we already missed our chance. It is not even about catching up – we are already too far behind. It is now simply a question of not coming last, of not condemning Australian motorists to dirty, expensive, third-rate vehicles that nobody else wants.

 

Insurance Companies Flag “Driver Disengagement” as Factor in Robot Car Safety

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 21/11/2020 - 8:55am in

The irony of automation....

Habitat

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 19/11/2020 - 5:30am in

Exiles on 12th Street · Habitat This is the ninth episode of Public Seminar’s podcast, Exiles on 12th Street. If...

Read More

The Problem With California’s Electric Dream

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 30/09/2020 - 8:27pm in

Even with a 15 year runway, California's electric vehicle plans don't look achievable.

Why Trump’s Promise to Save Manufacturing Was One He Never Intended to Keep

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 25/09/2020 - 4:25pm in

Trump’s promise to save manufacturing jobs and rebuild infrastructure was all bluster, no surprise from the man known for stiffing workers.

Infrastructure Stimulus: there are smart projects out there, if we care to look

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 14/09/2020 - 5:58am in

Infrastructure spending is touted as the path to economic recovery, but our leaders can no longer afford to throw billions at programs with little economic merit or policy logic. Good infrastructure investment is always the best response to a recession … Continue reading →

Pages