AUSTRALIA’S PUBLIC TRANSPORT:

INVESTMENT FOR A CLEAN TRANSPORT FUTURE

AUSTRA

LIA’S PU

BLIC TRA

NSPORT:

INVE

STM

ENT

FOR

A CL

EAN

TRA

NSP

ORT

FU

TURE

3

Australia imports more than half its oil requirements at a cost of $16 billion a year. By 2015 it is predicted we will import around 70 per cent of our oil. Since 2006, when petrol prices rose to the highest level yet, there has been a significant shift of patronage to public and active transport modes. However Australia is not investing adequately in infrastructure to support this trend.

In any country, big or small, accessible and affordable public transport is central to the life of the nation. The efficient movement of people and goods is essential for a thriving economy, to enhance the social fabric of the community and as a means of minimising environmental harm from pollution caused by greenhouse gas and toxic tailpipe emissions.

In the 20th century, Australia went from having world class urban public transport systems and effective rural rail networks to becoming one of the most car dependant nations on the planet. Investment in new public transport infrastructure has failed to keep pace with an increasing population and the continued spread of cities.

Among a swathe of economic costs associated with inefficient transport, traffic congestion alone costs the Australian economy more than $12 billion per annum, money that could be better spent establishing a low carbon economy. Building more roads is not the solution. The answer lies in reducing our car dependency and providing people with world class public transport services that give us the choice to leave our cars at home. We also need to develop a national strategy to enable Australia to wean itself off expensive oil.

To help shield Australians from the impact of rising petrol prices, address our spiralling carbon pollution and the transport needs of a rapidly growing population, we need greater investment in public and active transport.

1 NRMA BusinessWise study 31 March 2011 at www.mynrma.com.au/about/media/

Right now the strong Australian dollar is the only thing protecting our country from higher petrol prices. Should the value of the Australian dollar fall below its US counterpart we face paying at least $2 a litre for our petrol. NRMA figures1 show this could translate to around $2000 a year extra in petrol costs for people living on the edges of our major cities.

AUSTRA

LIA’S PU

BLIC TRA

NSPORT:

INVE

STM

ENT

FOR

A CL

EAN

TRA

NSP

ORT

FU

TURE

4

0.00% 0.50% 1.00%

2000-01

2003-04

2006-07

2009-10

Percentage

Yea

r Total roads and bridges

Total railway

Australia: money spent as % of GDP

GRAPH 1

Source: BITRE (2011) Australian Infrastructure Statistics Yearbook 2011, Canberra; and, ABS (2010) Gross State Product from Catalogue 52200- 2009-10

Graph 1 (above) shows national spending as a percentage of GDP over a ten year period. It compares spending on public sector road and bridge projects with public rail project spending.

While $11.3 billion was spent on road construction around the country in 2008-9, $5.1 billion was given away as subsidies by the Federal Government through the Fuel Tax Credits program (2007-08)2 and more than $1 billion was spent through the Fringe Benefits Tax to encourage the private use of company cars (2008-09).3 These high figures starkly contrast with the $3.3 billion spent in 2008-9 on rail construction.

WHAT HAS BeeN HAPPeNING AROUND THe COUNTRy? All Australian states and territories have a pattern of significant underspending on public transport infrastructure. Due to years of neglect and deferred projects, Australia is ill equipped to meet the serious and multiple transport challenges of this century, including congestion, carbon pollution, air pollution and rising petrol prices. Public transport has been and continues to be the poor second cousin, with a lack of planning and budgetary priority, despite policies that have seen Australia’s population grow rapidly.

However, since 2005 the growth rate of car usage has slowed as the use of public and active transport has increased. Government action is out of step with patronage and more money needs to be spent on public and active transport.

In a separate analysis, Graph 2 compares spending in each state, including money from all levels of government, for public sector roads with that spent on public bridges, railways, and harbours averaged over a ten year period. (Note: bridges, railways and harbours are referred to as ‘Other’ in the graph).

2 Australian Taxation Office, (2010) Taxation Statistics 07-08 3 Tax Expenditure Statement 2009 D26, D44, &A61, data for 2008-9

WHAT THIS STUDy SHOWS Research by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) shows that over the last ten years the amount of money spent on construction work by all levels of governments on public roads and bridges has been 4.3 times that spent on public railway construction.

AUSTRA

LIA’S PU

BLIC TRA

NSPORT:

INVE

STM

ENT

FOR

A CL

EAN

TRA

NSP

ORT

FU

TURE

5

Roads

Other

NSW

Qld

NT SA

W

A Vic Ta

s

ACT 0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80% P

erce

nta

ge

States

10 year average spend on Roads vs Other as % GSP

GRAPH 2

Source: ABS (2010) Engineering Construction Activity from Catalogue 8762.0 including Electronic Tables 13, 16, 19, 22, 28, 31, 34

Data that separates rail spending from harbours and bridges is not freely available and a comparison as made in Graph 1 is not possible for individual states. Even with this limitation, we can easily see road spending as a percentage of Gross State Product (GSP) still significantly outweighs that on bridges, railways and harbours.

New South WalesAs the graph above shows, NSW has done better than most other states in spending almost a third of its transport infrastructure budget within the bridges, railways and harbours category – at 0.29 per cent of GSP. This has included the building of the expensive Epping to Chatswood Rail link.

However as Sydney is the most populous capital in Australia with the largest economy, it is important that the ratio of public transport to roads funding is properly balanced. Sydney, like all of our major cities, has continued to develop on its fringes without adequate investment in public transport infrastructure. And although Sydney has the highest patronage of public transport, residents have greater dissatisfaction with their public transport system than those in other capitals.4 While road projects have been consistently delivered in State budget after State budget, there have been at least a dozen promised but deferred public transport projects. It is time for more public and active transport projects to be built.

Victoria Victoria’s poor spending on public and active transport is notorious. In recent years public transport patronage has grown substantially but capacity has not kept pace. The state government spent less than any other state on transport – with just 0.11 per cent of GSP within the ‘Other’ category in the last ten years. There has not been any expansion of rail to the outer suburbs for decades. While some lines have been reopened, the state government has not put forward any new rail projects while committing more public money to new roads. The state government needs to help Victorians prepare as petrol is not going to get cheaper. A number of feasibility studies have been commissioned but real action is needed and new rail lines need to be built.

4 Property Council of Australia My City: The People’s Verdict survey Jan 2011

Note: Other refers to bridges, railways and harbours

AUSTRA

LIA’S PU

BLIC TRA

NSPORT:

INVE

STM

ENT

FOR

A CL

EAN

TRA

NSP

ORT

FU

TURE

6

QueenslandQueensland has also spent 0.29 per cent of its GSP within the bridges, rail and harbours category. The mining boom in Queensland has helped to build bridges, roads and tunnels to increase motor vehicle access right across South East Queensland.

Bridges are necessarily very expensive infrastructure and Queensland’s figures disguise the recent and unprecedented spending on the duplication of the Gateway Bridge to support the adjacent expansion of the road network around the airport and into the city. Brisbane has also invested in urban rail and a Bus Rapid Transit system that is recognised as world class. This investment by State and local government has resulted in a doubling of bus passengers in the last 11 years. Seven-and-a-half additional lanes of highway would be needed if the South East Busway did not run. Train patronage has also grown in that time.

These public transport projects are helping to serve the rapidly expanding urban population. From satellite images one can see the massive development right down to the Gold Coast – once thriving rural areas are now a conurbation from Brisbane to the border. This spread of population without incorporation of alternatives to private vehicle mobility means it is going to be difficult for people to afford to get around by car when the price of petrol really starts to hurt. If there is to be a significant reduction in car dependency in South East Queensland, more public and active transport projects must be built.

Western AustraliaWestern Australia has continued to spend heavily on road building leaving Perth as one of the most car dependent cities on earth. Out of the largest 20 Australian cities, Perth has the highest level of car ownership.5 The opening of the Mandurah rail line and its immediate large patronage shows people are crying out for better public transport. Perth now extends more than 140 kilometres along the coastal strip. This has meant more development around new railway stations. However, there appear to be inconsistent planning approaches to the surrounding built environment and station designs that are not conducive to walking and cycling. As a result public transport has not been fully utilised in some parts of Perth. If the state government incorporates active transport infrastructure with its public transport planning, more people will be able to leave their cars at home.

South AustraliaThe data for South Australia shows a very high level of spending on roads compared to ‘Other’ expenditure with 0.61 per cent of GSP spent on roads compared to just 0.15 per cent on the rest. Adelaide has sprawled approximately 90 kilometres in a roughly north-south direction. Social problems arise when people are forced to travel long distances to reach jobs where public transport options are inadequate and people who do not drive cannot easily reach the services they want. At last the train line is being electrified and some additional railway built, but much more needs to be done. A target of 10 per cent of all trips by public transport by 2018 will not be enough to provide resilience for Adelaidians from the cost impacts of rising fuel prices.

TasmaniaTasmania is unique among the states in that it does not have a passenger rail system and consequently the contribution transport makes to carbon pollution is high by Australian standards (22 per cent in Tasmania versus 14 per cent overall). More than 90 per cent of people have access to a car so rising petrol prices will be a big consideration for future travel. Making bus trips more attractive, enhancing a cycleway network and promoting electric cycles to overcome the hilly terrain and dispersed settlement pattern will help people to shift modes away from cars.

5 ACF Sustainable Cities Index 2010, http://www.acfonline.org.au/default.asp?section_id=360

AUSTRA

LIA’S PU

BLIC TRA

NSPORT:

INVE

STM

ENT

FOR

A CL

EAN

TRA

NSP

ORT

FU

TURE

7

CONCLUSION AND ReCOmmeNDATIONS

Although the Federal Government has started to invest more in public transport, a great deal more needs to be done at every level of government to catch up on years of neglect. National public and active transport targets should aim to:

double the number of trips made by public transport in all major cities in the next decade triple the number of cycling trips made within ten years quadruple the number of walking trips within a decade.

Ongoing investment of this order will help Australia regain a world class public transport system.

We can move from being a pollution dependent economy to a cleaner economy. People can be happier and healthier. We can improve the resilience of our environment and our communities. We can do all these things by spending more on public and active transport while at the same time reducing our dependence on imported oil.

ACF recommends an overdue rebalancing of the transport budget: two thirds should be spent on public and active transport measures and one third should be spent on roads.

ACF calls on Australian governments to commit to developing a national strategy to reduce Australia’s demand for, and vulnerability, to imported oil.

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) is committed to inspiring people to achieve a healthy environment for all Australians. For over 40 years we have been a strong voice for the environment, promoting solutions through research, consultation, education and partnerships. We work with the community, business and government to protect, restore and sustain our environment.

Authorised by Don Henry, Australian Conservation Foundation, Level 1, 60 Leicester St, Carlton VIC 3053. Telephone 03 9345 1111.

www.acfonline.org.au

Images courtesy of: iStockphoto, Julia Sakis, Martin Wurt and Kerstin Scheckenburger

Printed on 100% recycled paper by PrintTogether, 7/252 St Georges Road, North Fitzroy, VIC 3068