110126 RTBU CSEQ2031 · CSEQ2031 Connecting SEQ 2031: An Integrated Regional Transport Plan for...

Submission to Department of Transport and Main Roads

on

Draft Connecting SEQ 2031 An Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland

by

Rail, Tram & Bus Union (Qld Branch)

January 2011

Rail, Tram & Bus Union submission (Jan 2011): Draft Connecting SEQ 2031

[ i ]

Executive Summary

The Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the development of the draft Connecting SEQ 2031: Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland.

The RTBU is a federally registered union of employees with a membership of 35,000, of which 4,000 are in SEQ. The RTBU has a special interest in transport, and rail transport in particular, and on behalf of its members is seeking the right policy approach to facilitate efficient investment, operation and use of transport infrastructure for the future development of SEQ.

The RTBU promotes the development of transport to achieve the desired transport outcomes of effective and efficient transport; viable transport services; safe transport; and sustainable transport. These outcomes need to be delivered by the Connecting SEQ 2031 Plan.

Much has been achieved as a result of the previous Integrated Regional Transport Plan, particularly the development and implementation of a comprehensive busway network and the introduction of the Translink Transit Authority, has led to substantial public transport mode share increases.

The RTBU commends the Queensland Government and the Department of Transport and Main Roads on undertaking the challenging task of refining and updating the Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland to respond to emerging issues.

Many of the initiatives in Connecting SEQ 2031 Plan are consistent with initiatives that the RTBU has advocated for many years in submissions to governments.

The RTBU identified six critical challenges that must be addressed by this plan: growth in passenger travel; growth in freight travel; growth in traffic congestion; mode share; and funding.

In particular the RTBU strongly supports the emphasis on passenger rail transport as this provides the most effective means of providing for the expected increases in patronage in SEQ. Increase frequency of services and addressing bottlenecks will greatly assist in making passenger rail more attractive.

However the increased role for rail for freight movements through (and within) SEQ is also critical and the RTBU believes this needs greater emphasis.


[ ii ]

It must also be noted that due to the long life cycle of transport infrastructure and the need to plan the requirements for the future, this Plan needs to look beyond the next 20 years, ie beyond 2031.

The RTBU supports integrating land use and transport as a strategic direction to achieve the desired future urban form.

The RTBU strongly recommends the following key principles in finalising Connecting SEQ 2031:

• Integrating land use and transport as a strategic direction to achieve the desired future urban form including preserving transport corridors in advance

• Leading infrastructure and services – develop public transport infrastructure and services in advance of when it is required, in particular passenger rail to serve developing urban areas identified in the plan.

• Travel demand management – look to moderate the growth in road traffic by introducing a range of travel demand initiatives and encouraging public transport and rail freight, by considering measures such as pricing mechanisms.

• A ‘level playing field’ between rail and road transport is needed for investment to ensure efficient choices are made between the transport modes and to enable the investments to be made with certainty

• Need to go beyond ‘encouraging voluntary travel behaviour’, primarily by introducing incentives for change such as some form of user charging

• Adoption of even higher public transport mode share targets would be readily achievable and have greater benefits for the community

• Investigate value capture opportunities to fund public transport infrastructure and services

• Increased emphasis on encouraging greater movement of freight by rail.

Given the lead times involved in developing and implementing major transport infrastructure and services, and their role in leading desired development, the RTBU recommends that feasibility, planning and design of priority projects and the requirements set out in the Plan should be commenced immediately.

The RTBU foreshadows the need for additional discussions and consultation with government, and as a major stakeholder, would appreciate an opportunity to provide advice on planning, implementation, service quality and monitoring of transport in SEQ.


[ iii ]

Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................ i Glossary........................................................................................................... iv

1. Rail, Tram and Bus Union ............................................................. 1

2. Transport challenges facing SEQ.................................................. 3 Critical Challenge 1: Growth in passenger travel .......................................3 Critical Challenge 2: Growth in freight travel .............................................4 Critical Challenge 3: Growth in traffic congestion .....................................4 Critical Challenge 4: Mode share ..................................................................5 Critical Challenge 5: Funding ........................................................................6

3. Plan for the future ........................................................................... 7 Effective and efficient transport ....................................................................7 Viable transport services ................................................................................8 Safe and secure transport ...............................................................................8 Sustainable transport ......................................................................................9

4. Six priorities for action ................................................................. 10 1. Creating compact and connected communities ....................................10 2. Change travel behaviour ..........................................................................11 3. Improving transport system efficiency ..................................................12 4. Supporting economic vitality...................................................................15 5. Protecting environmental quality and health........................................15 6. Delivering an integrated transport network..........................................16

5. Public transport network ............................................................. 17

6. Active transport network............................................................. 18

7. Freight network............................................................................. 19

8. Implementing Connecting SEQ 2031 ......................................... 20

9. Conclusions.................................................................................... 22

10. References ...................................................................................... 24


[ iv ]

Glossary

ACTU Australian Council of Trade Unions

ALP Australian Labor Party

ARA Australasian Railways Association

CSEQ2031 Connecting SEQ 2031: An Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland

DTMR Department of Transport and Main Roads

ITF International Transport Workers Federation

NRTC National Road Transport Commission

NTC National Transport Commission

PPP public private partnerships

RTBU Rail, Tram and Bus Union (Queensland Branch)

SEQ South East Queensland

TOD transit-oriented development

TDM travel demand management

UTIP International Union of Public Transport


[ 1 ]

1. Rail, Tram and Bus Union

The Connecting SEQ 2031: Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland (CSEQ2031) will significantly impact on the quality of life of RTBU members and their families.

The Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) was formed on 1 March 1993, through a historic amalgamation of three railway unions and one tram and bus union.

The RTBU has 35,000 members in the rail, tram and public sector bus areas across Australia, of which 4,000 are in South East Queensland (SEQ).

RTBU members are employed in the provision of:

• Bus and rail passenger services

• Freight rail services

• Rail infrastructure and maintenance services

Members of the RTBU perform a range transport related of functions – operations, maintenance and administration. As the representative union of most employees in rail and bus passenger transport and rail freight transport, the RTBU has a vital interest in promoting the economic and social importance of rail and bus infrastructure and services to the public.

The RTBU works to promote sustainable transport as an essential element in a fair and environmentally sustainable Australian society, and to promote the interests of rail and bus transport workers as a key element in achieving that goal.

The RTBU and its members have long involved themselves in the broader environmental issues of urban planning, efficient passenger and freight transit, energy use, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and social justice.

The RTBU is affiliated to the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) and the Australian Labor Party (ALP). The RTBU is the principal union in public transport and the rail industry generally.

The RTBU is also an Associate Member of the Australasian Railways Association (ARA), and a member of the international Union of Public Transport (UTIP).

The RTBU is clearly aligned with the environmental movement on the issues of urban planning, passenger transit, freight transport, energy use, climate change and social justice.


[ 2 ]

To demonstrate this commitment the RTBU has prepared a considerable number of submissions on important transport policy and planning developments (see exhibit below) and engaged expert advice on the latest research and best practice to assist in preparing these submissions.

As the revisions to the draft plan progress, the RTBU would be pleased for further opportunities to provide input.

The RTBU would appreciate an opportunity to be involved in a formal dialogue mechanism to be able to provide ongoing advice on planning, implementation, service quality and monitoring of transport in South East Queensland.

Exhibit: RTBU Submissions

Initial submission to Department of Transport and Main Roads on Draft Connection SEQ 2031 (November 2010)

Submission to the Department of Infrastructure and Planning on the Draft Terms of Reference for an EIS into the Cross River Rail (May 2010) Submission to the Department of Infrastructure and Planning on the SEQ Climate Change Management Plan (October 2009)

Submission to Department of Infrastructure and Planning on Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 (May 2009) Submission to Department of Infrastructure and Planning on Landsborough to Nambour Rail Project: Draft Terms of Reference for an Environmental Impact Statement (August 2008) Submission to AusLink on the Brisbane Urban Corridor Strategy (May 2007) Submission to Queensland Transport on the Draft SEQ Regional Freight Network Strategy 2006- 2011 (January 2007)

Second Submission to Productivity Commission on Road and Rail Freight Infrastructure Pricing (with Queensland Public Sector Union) (November 2006) Submission to AusLink on Brisbane Cairns Corridor Study (July 2006) Submission to Productivity Commission on Road and Rail Freight Infrastructure Pricing (May 2006)

Submission to National Transport Commission on Improving the Regulatory Framework for Transport Productivity in Australia (April 2006) Submission to National Transport Commission on Third Heavy Vehicle Pricing Determination Narrowing the Options Discussion Paper (January 2005)

Submission to Office of Urban Management on Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan (February 2005) Submission to Queensland Transport on Caboolture to Landsborough Rail Upgrade Study (December 2003)


[ 3 ]

2. Transport challenges facing SEQ

South East Queensland (SEQ) functions as a mega-metropolitan area and is important in economic terms, playing a predominant role in the Australian and Queensland economies.

Critical Challenge 1: Growth in passenger travel

A critical challenge that the CSEQ2031 Plan has to address is managing congestion in the face of strong population growth.

South East Queensland (SEQ) has experienced high and sustained population growth and is projected to grow to 4.4 million people by 2031. This growth will lead to increased traffic congestion, with vehicle travel increasing at a greater rate than population growth. Freight travel is expected to increase at similar or greater rates. Travel times will grow due to forecast reductions in average travel speeds and travel time variability.

BTRE (2007) projected that aggregate metropolitan traffic growth, in terms of total annual kilometres travelled (in passenger car equivalent units, PCU-km) increasing by close to 46 per cent between 2005 and 2020 for Brisbane.

Figure 1 illustrates the past and projected future urban passenger growth in Australian capital cities (BITRE 2008).

Figure 1: Eight capitals motorised passenger task

The estimates for (avoidable) social costs due to urban traffic congestion for Brisbane rise between 2005 and 2020 from $1.19 billion to $3.027 billion per annum (2.5 times) and average network traffic performance rise from 0.29 to 0.46 minutes per kilometre (1.6 times) (BTRE 2007).


[ 4 ]

Critical Challenge 2: Growth in freight travel

Growth in urban freight will also have a major impact on the region’s transport system. While the Brisbane port area is serviced by road and rail infrastructure, 90 per cent of freight movements within Brisbane are road based. Between 2003 and 2020, the road freight task in Brisbane is expected to grow at an annual rate of 3.7 per cent, compared to the 3 per cent growth expected in both Sydney and Melbourne (BTRE 2007).

The Brisbane metropolitan short-haul road freight is expected to grow by 3% per annum between 2003 and 2020 (SKM/Meyrick 2005). Road freight is expected to double in Brisbane between 2006 and 2026, largely through pickup and delivery of goods within Brisbane rather than long haul freight. The effects of freight growth are most likely to be felt most in the urban area and will add to congestion problems.

A major challenge is the incompatibility of passenger and freight rail operations. An example of a major constraint is the convergence and conflict at the track crossovers just west of Roma Street Station in Brisbane where the 2-line passenger and freight rail from the south intersects the western 4-line rail. Together with the projected population growth, the access for freight is most likely limited to the hours between 8pm to 6am, unless dedicated and separate freight infrastructure provided. Freight and passenger rail transport also compete for the same limited capacity.

Without a sizeable increase in rail freight capacity, the result will be a spill over to road and a dramatic increase in road freight and congestion in SEQ.

There is also the question as to why so little general freight is not carried by rail in SEQ. The answer is a combination of limited train paths, with passenger and freight rail competition for limited infrastructure; the poor access to freight terminals and interchanges and hence the time and cost competiveness of road vs rail.

Critical Challenge 3: Growth in traffic congestion

Undue traffic congestion will degrade the liveability of SEQ through:

• Increased personal time delays for occupants of freight and public transport vehicles – characterised by congestion, jammed traffic and unpredictable travel times;

• Increased vehicle operating costs for these vehicles due to increased fuel consumption in stop-start traffic and vehicle wear and tear;

• More vehicular exhaust emissions such as carbon monoxide, lead and particulate matter pollution which is detrimental to health;


[ 5 ]

• More green house gas emissions that are responsible for global warming and climate change;

• Reduced accessibility to jobs, schools, shops and other community services due to commuting times, with a disproportionate impact on those with constrained choices of activity locations or without access to a car;

• Accessibility requirements for the significant and increasing proportions of the population either disabled or elderly, with specific mobility and access requirements and reduced driving capacity;

• Increased heavy vehicle use, where associated with increased vehicular activity; and

• Adverse impacts on the man-made and natural environment.

Critical Challenge 4: Mode share

Another major challenge is urban passenger transport mode share – in Brisbane the mode share for urban public transport is 9.0% (all day per cent of all passenger kilometres travelled) or 14.7% for commute (per cent of all motorised trips) (BITRE 2008). This is illustrated in Figure 2.

There has been an over 90% mode share for passenger cars for the past 30 years! This is the only mode share context that the current generation of travellers have ever seen – it is embedded into the culture and psyche – and hence very difficult to change.

Not only has there been limited attempts to change travel behaviour until recently, but there is an enormous deficit of under-investment in bus and rail passenger transport. As already mentioned there is the incompatibility of passenger and freight rail operations.

Figure 2: Eight capitals mode share


[ 6 ]

Critical Challenge 5: Funding

There is considerable pressure on the government expenditure programs arising from the short term economic issues currently confronting Australian governments in light of the global financial crisis, as evidenced by the Queensland Government’s decision to privatise and/or sell transport assets to raise revenue.

There is the ongoing issue of public transport viability as the current SEQ operating ratio 27% (ie state has to fund 73 cents in every dollar of the annual cost of services). Combining this with the increasing population (quantum), the need to increase public transport mode share, gives rise to the question: where will the money come from.

To enable the solutions to these challenges to be implemented there is a need to investigate a range of funding options for increased public transport infrastructure and services. This includes considering raising road user charges to reflect the true cost, otherwise it makes it difficult to increase public transport charges.

The RTBU considers that these are critical challenges that the CSEQ2031 Plan needs to provide greater emphasis on and hence subsequently address these issues. There needs to be evidence that adequate analysis of travel estimates and scenarios has been conducted to achieve the objectives of CSEQ2031.


[ 7 ]

3. Plan for the future

The RTBU promotes the development of sustainable transport to achieve the following desired outcomes; • Effective and efficient transport • Viable transport services • Safe and secure transport, and • Sustainable transport.

Effective and efficient transport

Efficient and effective personal and freight travel within the region, would be characterised by reductions in numbers and lengths of person and freight trips, an increased percentage of long distance freight by rail, and an increased relative shift to higher occupancy transport such as public transport, and walk and cycle modes.

Undue congestion will result from inefficient land use development patterns that are difficult to service appropriately with adequate transport infrastructure including appropriate rail and public transport. Combined with inadequate pricing of transport, which leads to the external costs created by each mode not being taken into account, may give rise to longer commuting distances, imbalances between supply and demand, and excessive car use.

Inappropriate transport infrastructure, either too much or too little, may exacerbate imbalances between transport supply and demand and increase congestion that degrades the mobility of people and goods. Reductions in travel are needed as well as increased efficiency of travel.

The use of transport infrastructure, and the pricing signals inherent in road user charging (including freight vehicles), should aim to achieve effective and efficient transport outcomes. To be able to address the transport task being faced, the most cost-effective and efficient balance of transport services (in terms of economic and sustainability criteria) should be pursued. This will ultimately be a balance of passenger and freight transport by car, truck, bus and train and requires a major paradigm shift by governments.

Road freight results in 5.6 to 6.4 times more externality costs than rail freight. (PJPL 2005)

The RTBU considers that regional transport objectives should include: “to minimise total economic cost to the community” ie the cost per passenger and/or tonne kilometre. The costs should include the costs of travel time,


[ 8 ]

delay, reliability, safety, emissions, energy etc and the impacts on the physical, built and social environment.

The RTBU supports integrating land use and transport as a strategic direction to achieve the desired future urban form.

Viable transport services

Transport services must be viable in an economic and financial sense to ensure their sustainability into the future for the benefit of transport users, industry, and the community as a whole. Transport costs are a major component of the cost of doing business. Access to jobs must also be convenient to link employees and employers efficiently.

Viable transport services promote economic development by reducing commuting costs and lowers costs of linking services and goods to customers and markets and between seaports, airports, terminals and the regional and national transport system.

Where transport services provide positive economic benefits for transport users, industry, and the community as a whole, then there is a strong case for Government financial support.

All modes of transport generate externalities, however rail generates fewer negative externality costs than road transport. For further information on external costs refer to the External Costs: Research results on socio-environmental damages due to electricity and transport a European Commission Report (2003).

The RTBU believes that a ‘level playing field’ between rail and road transport is needed for investment to ensure efficient choices are made between the transport modes and to enable the investments to be made with certainty. This will require mechanisms to be established to allow consistent road and rail funding decisions to be made, recognising the substitutable nature of road and rail freight.

Safe and secure transport

Rail freight is between 13 and 23 times safer than road freight (PJPL 2005)

A safe and secure transport system would be characterised by: reduced crashes, personal injuries, property damage and fatalities; reduced personal security events; infrastructure adequately protected against terrorism with adequate redundancy; contingency options available for response to the emerging risk of fuel shortages or price increases; and quick response systems for natural disaster and other emergency events.


[ 9 ]

Promoting a balanced use of transport infrastructure should aim to ensure the safety and security for operators, employees, users and the community. Furthermore one of the major benefits is that bus and rail transport is much safer than travelling by car.

The RTBU strongly believes that safety and security must be key considerations in any long-term transport strategy development.

In view of the recent natural disasters across Queensland the key transport goal of ‘Developing a resilient system’ is very pertinent. This includes assessing the key vulnerabilities in the rail and road transport network because of its critical importance to the economy.

Sustainable transport

The RTBU is concerned that investment in transport infrastructure and services should be sustainable, that is minimising impacts on the environment and providing equitably for future generations. The primary criteria include energy, greenhouse gas and other emissions and impacts on the physical, built and social environment.

There are at least three aspects of sustainability of interest:

• Efficient use of energy – more fuel efficient vehicles, great use of rail, efficient use of fossil fuel use by transport to reduce energy and global (GHG) emissions and increased use of renewable energy.

• Cleaner air, and quieter environment: through reductions in emissions from mobile sources, and more efficient transport (higher occupancy), such as enhanced public transport and rail, walking and cycling.

• A transport system integrated into the built and natural environment with minimal associated impact including on water quality and open space through sound planning, design, construction and operations.

For example a dedicated rail or busway corridor is more sustainable use of scarce urban land resources than the equivalent passenger and freight capacity of a multi-lane roadway.

Rail is certainly more efficient than road in terms of energy or fuel use for both mass passenger transport and bulk, long distance freight transport. Rail freight produces significantly lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions than road freight (large trucks produce over twice as much as trains on average; small trucks are worse: ACIL 2001).

The RTBU supports the key transport goals [CSEQ2031 p20]. However the strategy for the future needs to go beyond ‘encouraging voluntary travel behaviour’, primarily by introducing incentives for change such as some form of user charging.


[ 10 ]

The RTBU welcomes the proposal for increased public transport mode share, however the adoption of even higher public transport mode share targets would be readily achievable and have greater benefits for the community – particularly with respect to the reduction of energy use, carbon emissions and car dependency.

Developing a resilient rail transport network, in particular as evidenced by challenges presented by the recent flooding events. The transport network needs to have alternative routes available when major incidents or events occur. The rail network development and investment also needs to take into account vulnerability to reduced oil supply, rising oil prices and climate change impacts is minimised.

4. Six priorities for action

The RTBU supports the approach in CSEQ2031 to list a large range of potential strategies and then focus action on priorities that are affordable. [CSEQ2031 p24].

The three critical aspects are determining the priority strategies (through analysis of quantitative and qualitative aspects), ensuring resourcing is available (capability, capacity, information, funding) and holding relevant agencies accountable, usually through regular public reporting mechanisms.

It is also important that the strategies are carefully crafted to be aggressively action oriented to deliver the required outcome. This is a once in 20 year opportunity to set a challenging strategy.

1. Creating compact and connected communities

The RTBU strongly supports integrating land use and transport, as a strategic direction to achieve the desired future urban form and creating compact and connected communities is a priority.

The RTBU considers that there should be much more aggressive strategies to support compact and connected communities – simply undertaking to ‘Promote..’ [CSEQ2031 p25 Policy 1.1 & 1.3] will mean that it is highly likely that little will result.

There are a number of Key Actions which list local government as the lead agent [CSEQ2031 p28]:

• develop activity centres [1.2] …

• develop priority transit corridors [1.3] …

• consider funding arrangements [1.4] …


[ 11 ]

These actions must be led by State agencies (DIP or TMR) otherwise it is highly likely that little will result.

The RTBU considers that the Connecting SEQ 2031 strategy must include an investigation into a range of value capture opportunities to raise revenue to fund public transport infrastructure and services at transit oriented development (TOD) precincts and transport hubs.

A greater link between land use and transport infrastructure will better encourage sustainable transport and land use outcomes. To this end, the RTBU supports genuine TODs that increase passenger transport use. However, a cautious approach must be taken to construction of TODs over mixed use parts of the rail network. This is particularly the case given future operating requirements can often be overlooked or compromised to achieve short term development benefits.

While TODs are key government strategy for SEQ, there has been a failure to deliver any substantial or signature TODs to date. The RTBU suggests that there is a need for government leadership and investment in delivering best practice signature TODs.

The RTBU strongly endorses the view that integrated land use planning and transport planning is critical to achieving the objectives of the SEQ Regional Plan, Connecting SEQ 2031 and other desired Government objectives.

There is strong need to consider value capture of increased property values resulting from increased passenger services at TOD precincts as a means of offsetting the costs and this needs to be orchestrated at the state level.

2. Change travel behaviour

The RTBU considers a more comprehensive investigation be conducted into a range of demand management initiatives to facilitate transport mode share changes that are consistent with the CSEQ 2031 targets. Such an investigation should also review the capacity for different demand management initiatives to provide funds to government for investment in desirable transport infrastructure.

The RTBU considers that travel behaviour will not significantly change voluntarily, nor will that change be sustained. Extensive experience and research from the road safety sector in relation to speed management and random breath testing shows the need for incentives to change behaviour (in this case sustained enforcement campaigns).

To be able to change travel behaviour, given the 30 year flat line of mode share described earlier, requires a package of measures, which must include strong incentives, particularly road user charging/pricing. This could be in


[ 12 ]

conjunction with ongoing developments with the Australian Government’s Future Tax System Review, particularly lifting road user charging therefore facilitating greater utilisation of public transport

A recent survey by the RACQ (see Exhibit below) showed qualified support from members on urban road pricing.

Exhibit: RACQ Transport Costs Survey 2009

The purpose of the RACQ survey aimed to evaluate the relative acceptance of various forms of urban road pricing to improve mobility, reduce congestion and raise revenue. The results indicate that when it comes to urban road pricing regimes:

• Members prefer congestion charging (50% support) over road tolls (44% support) or increased parking charges (39%) – suggesting congestion charging to be the preferable mechanism to fund transport infrastructure

• 57% of members are relatively accepting that an CBD congestion charging would improve traffic flows

• 54% of members would support a congestion charge of $5 a day

In response to a proposed congestion pricing levy, members indicated that to avoid paying a congestion charge that:

• 76% would most likely consider public transport

• 48% of people would consider where they shopped

• 42% would consider car pooling.

3. Improving transport system efficiency

The RTBU considers that this section has a strong road traffic emphasis and needs much more emphasis on rail, bus, and freight transport [CSEQ2031 p32].

Examples of actions that could be included are:

• smoothing peak demand for bus and rail passenger services, through such actions as providing more shoulder services, differential pricing etc

• encouraging back loading of passenger services by facilitating the growth of employment in regional activity centres.

Whenever there is an opportunity to identify preferred new alignments and preserve them, allowance should be made for sufficient width of rail corridor to allow for future capacity, such as 4 track, 2 stack configurations (on dual


[ 13 ]

and standard guage corridors), especially when grade separating railway level crossings. Also allowance for best practice through running design (see Fig 1) should be incorporated for all new stations, allowing for more efficient, high-speed services and express services to bypass all-station services.

Figure 1: Best practice through running line design through station

In SEQ the RTBU recommends that grade separation of critical railway levels crossings is imperative to improve transport safety at the following priority locations:

• Coopers Plains – Boundary Road, near Beenleigh Road

• Geebung – Newman Road, near Railway Parade

• Carseldine – Beams Road

• Lawnton – Todds Road, near Gympie Road

• Strathpine – South Pine Road

• Banyo – St Vincent’s Road, near Royal Parade

• Wacol – Wacol Station Road, near Ipswich Road

• Runcorn – Nathan Road, near Beenleigh Road

• Fruitgrove – Warrigal Road, near Beenleigh Road

• Kuraby – Beenleigh Road, near St Andrew Street

• Sunnybank – Stones Road, near Breton Street

• Coorparoo – Cavendish Road, near Clarence Street, and

• Mitchelton – Blackwood St & Osborne Road.

Many rail corridors in SEQ have limited ability to improve travel time performance due to existing constraints. The proposed “Rail Revolution” will present serious issues and challenges particularly in brown field


[ 14 ]

corridors, where additional tracks will be required and where there is insufficient corridor width.

Transitioning the development of the rail network so that it reflects contemporary safety, operational and engineering standards will also present challenges to maintaining existing services. This is particularly the case where additional tracks will need to be squeezed into existing and constrained rail corridors.

The adequate provision of routine maintenance activities – as well as emergency responses – without compromising safety or service reliability are factors that will also must to be considered in the ‘Rail Revolution’.

The development of a Rail Network Services Plan (which needs to include a strategy for both infrastructure and services) should also seek to:

• Optimise the horizontal and vertical alignments: resulting in greater cost efficiency, reduced energy consumption and CO2 emissions and quicker travel times;

• Achieve other long-term government objectives: including Q2 targets, desirable regional outcomes and Connecting SEQ 2031 transport and land use objectives; and

• Investigate new train operating parameters: including building the capability within government to control and test a range of assumptions which influence infrastructure, service patterns, network capacity and capability. For example, to achieve improved safety and reduced travel time, high speed ExpressLink and CoastLink services will require “platform free through running” capabilities. This, in turn, may require modifications to a number of key train stations.

A key challenge in achieving ‘Rail Revolution’ outcomes will be to construct new tracks without disruptions to existing services during the construction phases. This will entail safety separation and significantly greater property requirements than the existing constrained rail corridor boundary.

A Rail Network Services Plan will therefore also need to undertake range of further investigation studies including:

• Identification of practical/operational aspects;

• Project Staging and sequencing;

• Dynamic modelling and assessment of scenarios;

• Grade separation of key rail junctions; and

• Understanding property requirements.


[ 15 ]

Preservation of sufficient rail corridor land for future requirements should be an early part of the development of a Rail Network Services Plan. It is vital to ensure that different government agencies’ planning decisions and commercial development activities do not compromises future CSEQ 2031 plans and objectives.

4. Supporting economic vitality

The RTBU strongly supports the increased emphasis on encouraging greater movement of freight by rail. [CSEQ2031 p36, Actions 4.3 & 4.4].

It is important that road and rail freight strategies are integrated and not conducted in an ad hoc or disjointed manner.

Preservation of sufficient land for future requirements for rail corridors and freight logistics centres (which need to operate 24/7) should be a key part of a rail network infrastructure plan. It is vital to ensure that the different government agencies’ planning decisions and commercial development activities do not compromise future CSEQ 2031 plans and objectives. This may also require consideration of appropriate incentives to rail companies to facilitate appropriate location consistent with the objectives of CSEQ 2031.

5. Protecting environmental quality and health

The increased transport of passengers and freight by rail is significantly less emissions intensive than private car transport. Increasing rail and bus share in the transport of passengers and freight will make a significant and important contribution to the overall reduction in carbon pollution.

While the rail sector can make a significant contribution to a reduction in carbon pollution, doing so at an optimum level will require further investment to bring the rail network up to higher performance standards. This includes improving transit times, reliability, gradients, curves and crossing loops and untangling the transport knot between rail freight and passengers in the metropolitan area.

Accordingly, the RTBU requests the Queensland Government revisit mode share targets so that it reflects more optimal levels and provides additional funds for the construction and enhancement of railway infrastructure in Queensland.

The government should also investigate the implications of the ‘vulnerability assessment for mortgage, petroleum and inflation risks and expenditure’ (VAMPIRE) index on car dependency and current transport and land use policies in SEQ. To date, there has been little analysis of the potential social,


[ 16 ]

economic and political impacts and risks of rising fuel costs on the SEQ region.

The VAMPIRE index and related research considers and highlights current urban transport problems, and identifies how new planning strategies and broader public policy can address oil vulnerability and supply risks (VAMPIRE Index by Dodson and Snipe, Griffith University).

The RTBU believes a whole of government approach is required to identify the synergies between responses to climate change and oil vulnerability in Queensland. At a preliminary level, it must be noted that a significant investment in rail freight and public transport can achieve significant outcomes in reducing Queensland’s exposure to oil vulnerability and in reducing carbon pollution.

6. Delivering an integrated transport network

The rail network in SEQ has the legacy of 19th Century alignments and rail corridor constraints. The RTBU is concerned that, in many instances, there is insufficient corridor land to achieve many of the infrastructure enhancements required to achieve the objectives of Connecting SEQ 2031.

Constraints include corridor land width, horizontal, vertical alignments and the lack of modern engineering standards in some areas. The SEQ Rail Network has not had the benefit of receiving a commensurate level of investment to the major road networks which are now benefiting from improved alignments and a reduced travel times.

An important aspect of this section is an integrated transport network, which should mean more connections between bus and rail services, rather than considering them separately. The bus feeder services need to be at the same frequency or better to connecting train services to reduce the potential waiting transfer penalty.

The proposed Coastlink service raises concerns especially the statement ‘travel time of about one hour’ – to achieve this will require a very large investment in infrastructure and rollingstock and should not be a priority. It is more important to discourage the need for long distance travel by facilitating appropriate land use at the Gold and Sunshine Coasts to generate employment and ensuring appropriate distance based pricing so that long distance travellers are not being subsidised by metropolitan travellers.

The RTBU supports the development of a Rail Network Services Plan (which needs to include a strategy for both infrastructure and services) to ensure the effective delivery of an integrated transport network.


[ 17 ]

5. Public transport network

The trunk and feeder design proposed [CSEQ2031 p45] will require education of public transport users to explain the reason and need for the shift, as this will change operation from one seat journey to having to interchange and research indicates that this is viewed unfavourably by users.

The RTBU supports the concept of a ‘2031 rail network services plan’ [CSEQ2031 p47]. This is expected to involve a significant enhancement of existing rail infrastructure and rollingstock in SEQ and will require a comprehensive assessment of the current rail corridor capacity and constraints. Many rail corridors in SEQ have limited ability to improve travel time performance due to existing constraints, including insufficient corridor width.

Transitioning the rail network so that it reflects contemporary safety, operational and engineering standards will also present technical and economic challenges to maintaining existing services.

The rail network services plan should also seek to optimise the horizontal and vertical alignments, resulting in greater cost efficiency, reduced energy consumption and CO2 emissions and quicker travel times. It should also investigate new train operating parameters, to achieve improved safety and reduced travel time.

A key challenge will be to construct new tracks without disruption to existing services during the construction phases.

Preservation of sufficient rail corridor land for future requirements should be a key part of the rail network services plan. It is vital to ensure that the different government agencies’ planning decisions and commercial development activities do not compromise future CSEQ 2031 plans and objectives.

The requirement for adequate and accessible public transport is also a growing social justice issue, as an increasing proportion of the population does not have a car available for most trips. Along with the aging of our community, there is also an increasing proportion of the population with disabilities who rely on public transport services to obtain seamless access to health and other services.

There is a serious issue of the impact of passenger loadings with additional patronage from outer suburbs resulting in the inability for passengers to board trains at inner stations.

The RTBU is concerned about the trend towards the excessive use of consultants rather than building up core rail infrastructure and services planning and design capability within government. Outsourcing to


[ 18 ]

external consultants results in inconsistency, fragmentation and lack of continuity of approach ultimately results in reduced value for money. Queensland Rail has the expertise, and working together with DTMR and Translink Transit Authority, is best suited to assist in identifying the enabling strategies and resources required to assist with the development and implementation of the rail network services plan.

6. Active transport network

There needs to be a greater focus on pedestrian movements in the CBD along with other active transport infrastructure as there are a number of locations (eg Central Rail station and King George bus station) with high pedestrian movements near public transport that have inadequate capacity or are not of an appropriate level of service (eg weather protection).

The RTBU supports the provision of active and public transport infrastructure in new communities [CSEQ20131 p64]. The application of infrastructure charging with funds hypothecated to transport is supported.

An increased pedestrian focus is required in Brisbane CBD with seamless connectivity, with smoother even surfaces and wider footpaths, improved pedestrian flows. Initiatives to enhance the attractiveness and ease of walking, including:

• Cycle times at crossings giving greater priority to pedestrian flows to and from major transport interchanges

• Provision of footbridges and subways across/over streets at high traffic locations

• Ensure speed limits are appropriate in areas which are actively used by high volumes of pedestrians near public transport nodes.

• Open passageways with uninterrupted flows, with commercial activities adjacent to the pathways, not restricting movements.

• Footpaths with flat surfaces and firm stable and slip resistant surfaces, minimal inclines, slopes and grades

• Ensure compliance with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles

• Provide seamless connectivity to transport station precincts.


[ 19 ]

7. Freight network

The RTBU considers that the major transport policy ‘blind spot’ in CSEQ 2031 appears to be the lack of support for rail freight.

It is noted that CSEQ 2031 proposes a significantly greater role for rail freight with commitments to ‘develop facilities to allow more containerised freight to be carried on rail’ and ‘the government will work with industry and terminal operators to improve long and short haul rail freight opportunities, to reduce the impact of road freight transport on the community and the environment.’

There is a significant potential opportunity to achieve major modal shift from road to rail for the movement of general freight in Australia. However, to achieve this, the ‘metro’ rail freight capacity constraints need to be urgently addressed. The current passenger peak hour restrictions on ‘metro’ freight movements results in a spill over on to road for the current rail freight task, further adding to metropolitan road congestion and carbon emissions.

Rail freight is compartmentalised within the report and so the interdependencies with increased passenger service levels need to be considered within the development of the rail network services plan.

The RTBU also believes that there must be an identification of rail network enhancements which will ultimately achieve the separation of freight services from passenger services from Caboolture to Acacia Ridge and Moolabin and Ipswich to the Port of Brisbane. While the emphasis on passenger services is welcome, it may result in unintended adverse consequences for rail freight movement within SEQ if not appropriately managed.

The rail network services plan should identify how the CSEQ 2031 objectives can be achieved – particularly where there is any foreseeable impact on an already constrained SEQ metro network which shares both passenger and freight tasks for approximately 50% of the metro network.

The RTBU observes that the capacity of government to facilitate a number of rail freight terminal objectives in SEQ 2031 (including the expansion of Acacia Ridge Terminal, relocation of Moolabin and a new freight terminal north of Caboolture) may not be achieved if decisions are driven solely by market and commercial investment priorities.

A whole of government approach is required to identify and facilitate with incentives, appropriate freight logistics locations which can operate 24/7 to achieve the desirable outcomes.


[ 20 ]

8. Implementing Connecting SEQ 2031

The RTBU supports an appropriate ongoing planning, evaluation and monitoring institutional framework, including a governance structure and agreed processes and actions.

In relation to the projected increases in the passenger and freight task there is a compelling need to integrate passenger and freight rail solutions due to the shared infrastructure in SEQ.

Because of the long life of rail infrastructure it is important to ensure a long term outlook in developing the strategic rail network.

A primary issue in this section requiring attention is funding. The RTBU recommends that specific funding policy issues should be addressed and if not able to be resolved now, should be identified as being of long term significance and that consideration of alternative funding options for rail and bus freight and passenger transport infrastructure needs to consider:

• Appropriate means of restraining private car travel through travel demand measures (TDM). The Plan needs to keep the door open on measures, both incentives and penalties, to encourage more sustainable forms of transport, such as parking levies, road user charging, congestion charging, public transport components in employment packages

• Appropriate assessment, planning and funding for public transport including rail versus road improvements, taking into account whole of life criteria

• Infrastructure bonds with favourable tax incentives to make investment in infrastructure attractive and to attract funds.

• A broader whole-of-life assessment of infrastructure assets should occur before governments consider public-private partnerships (PPP) for toll roads that encourage road transport. Experience has shown these have the potential to induce demand for additional travel

• Consideration of progressively introducing comprehensive road user charging and hypothecate the revenue from to pay for public transport services and infrastructure, especially since the success of congestion pricing London in reducing travel demand and providing finance for public transport infrastructure and services

• Current assessment and decision making processes disadvantage assets with a long asset life, such as rail corridors. There needs to be a broader


[ 21 ]

whole-of-life assessment that incorporates environmental benefits, costs and intergenerational transfer of costs and risks etc

• Value capture of transport infrastructure improvements – investigate options to capture some of the property and development value created by investing in transport infrastructure such as new rail lines, transit oriented development, interchanges and busways. One option is to assess a levy for new transit precinct development and provide a significant proportion for new infrastructure and services and the remainder provide back to residents for use on public transport.

The RTBU supports the concept outlined in Figure 11.1 [CSEQ2031 p119] which indicates that there needs to be an integrated approach to passenger and rail transport and consider road, rail and active transport modes. It is important that this integration is not lost in implementing the investment principles as portrayed in Figure 11.2 [CSEQ2031 p120] – seems to suggest that freight is the lowest priority and that each mode is considered separately.

The RTBU recommends that monitoring delivery must include a mandated public reporting requirements.

The RBTU strongly supports a strong sustained regional implementation process, involving key delivery stakeholders at state and local level, with appropriate advisory arrangements with other interested stakeholders.

The RTBU recommends that governance structure include a formal advisory group involving transport infrastructure key stakeholders including Queensland Rail, Local Government and the RTBU.

The RTBU is concerned about the trend towards the excessive use of consultants rather than building up core rail infrastructure planning and design capability within government. Outsourcing to external consultants results in inconsistency, fragmentation and lack of continuity of approach ultimately results in reduced value for money. Queensland Rail has the expertise, and working together with DTMR and Translink Transit Authority, is best suited to assist in identifying the enabling strategies and resources required to assist with the development and implementation of the rail network services plan.


[ 22 ]

9. Conclusions

The RTBU commends the Queensland Government and the Department of Transport and Main Roads on undertaking the challenging task of refining and updating the Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland to respond to emerging issues.

Many of the initiatives in Connecting SEQ 2031 Plan are consistent with initiatives that the RTBU has advocated for many years in submissions to governments.

The RTBU identified six critical challenges that must be addressed by this plan: growth in passenger travel; growth in freight travel; growth in traffic congestion; mode share; and funding.

In particular the RTBU strongly supports the emphasis on passenger rail transport as this provides the most effective means of providing for the expected increases in patronage in SEQ. Increase frequency of services and addressing bottlenecks will greatly assist in making passenger rail more attractive.

However the increased role for rail for freight movements through (and within) SEQ is also critical and the RTBU believes this needs greater emphasis.

It must also be noted that due to the long life cycle of transport infrastructure and the need to plan the requirements for the future, this Plan needs to look beyond the next 20 years, ie beyond 2031.

The RTBU strongly recommends the following key principles in finalising Connecting SEQ 2031:

• Integrating land use and transport as a strategic direction to achieve the desired future urban form including preserving transport corridors in advance

• Leading infrastructure and services – develop public transport infrastructure and services in advance of when it is required, in particular passenger rail to serve developing urban areas identified in the plan.

• Travel demand management – look to moderate the growth in road traffic by introducing a range of travel demand initiatives and encouraging public transport and rail freight, by considering measures such as pricing mechanisms.

• A ‘level playing field’ between rail and road transport is needed for investment to ensure efficient choices are made between the transport modes and to enable the investments to be made with certainty


[ 23 ]

• Need to go beyond ‘encouraging voluntary travel behaviour’, primarily by introducing incentives for change such as some form of user charging

• Adoption of even higher public transport mode share targets would be readily achievable and have greater benefits for the community

• Investigate value capture opportunities to fund public transport infrastructure and services

• Increased emphasis on encouraging greater movement of freight by rail.

Given the lead times involved in developing and implementing major transport infrastructure and services, and their role in leading desired development, the RTBU recommends that feasibility, planning and design of priority projects set out in the Plan should be commenced immediately.

In addition to this submission, the RTBU foreshadows the need for additional discussions and consultation with government and DTMR officers. The RTBU, as a major stakeholder, would appreciate an opportunity to be involved in any ongoing formal dialogue mechanism, to provide advice on planning, implementation, service quality and monitoring of transport in SEQ.


[ 24 ]

10. References ACIL Consulting (2001) Rail in Sustainable Transport, A Report to the Rail Group of the Standing Committee on Transport, May 2001, Canberra.

Australasian Railway Association (2005) The Future of Freight, ARA, Canberra

Australian Transport Council (ATC) (2004) National Guidelines for Transport System Management In Australia, Canberra.

Austroads (2004) Guide to Project Evaluation, Sydney.

Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) (2001) National Track Audit, prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton.

Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2008) Urban passenger transport: how people move about in Australian cities, Information Sheet 31.

Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) (2003a), Working Paper 57: Land Transport Infrastructure Pricing, for the Australian Logistics Council, Department of Transport and Regional Services, June 2003, Canberra

BTRE (2003b) Freight between Australian Cities 1972-2001, Information Sheet 22, Department of Transport and Regional Services, September 2003, Canberra

BTRE (2003c) An Overview of the Australian Road Freight Transport Industry, Working Paper 60, Department of Transport and Regional Services, December 2003, Canberra

BTRE (2006) Freight Measurement and Modelling in Australia, Canberra

BTRE (2007) Estimating Urban Traffic and Congestion Cost Trends for Australian Cities, Working Paper 71

CSIRO (2008) Fuel for thought: The future of transport fuels: challenges and opportunities, Future Fuels Forum, June 2008

European Commission (2003) External Costs: Research results on socio-environmental damages due to electricity and transport. http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/externe_en.pdf

Laird, P (2003) Rail Studies: Land Freight External Costs in Queensland, report to Queensland Transport, Brisbane

Laird, P (2005) Revised Land Freight External Costs In Australia, Australasian Transport Research Forum, Sydney

Laird, P (2008) The Brisbane - Cairns Railway: building on success. Australian Rail Summit, Sydney, July 2008

Laird, P and Lander, F (1997) Land freight subsidies in Australia, Australian Transport Research Forum, Vol 21, Part 1, pp420-435

Queensland Transport (2001b) Rail Network Strategy for Queensland, Brisbane.

Port Jackson Partners Limited (PJPL) (2005) The Future for Freight 2005, prepared for the Australian Railway Association, Canberra.

Sinclair Knight Merz in association with Meyrick and Associates (SKM/Meyrick) (2005) Twice the Task: a review of Australia’s freight transport tasks, report prepared for National Transport Commission, Melbourne.

“The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them”

Albert Einstein

This submission was prepared with the assistance of

Prof Phil Charles, University of Queensland.

Rail, Tram & Bus Union

(Queensland Branch)

First Floor, 457 Upper Edward Street

BRISBANE QLD 4000

Enquiries regarding this submission please contact:

Noel Morris, Vice President Qld Branch &

National Council Delegate

Rail, Tram & Bus Union

(Queensland Branch)

Phone: (07) 3839 4988 Mobile: 0419 762 133

E-mail: [email protected]

Web: www.rtbu.com.au

110126 RTBU CSEQ2031 · CSEQ2031 Connecting SEQ 2031: An Integrated Regional Transport Plan for...

Documents

Transcript of 110126 RTBU CSEQ2031 · CSEQ2031 Connecting SEQ 2031: An Integrated Regional Transport Plan for...