The last few years and especially after the global financial crisis or GFC as we call it here in Australia that we love our acronyms, a big part of the transport discussion is around financing and funding. Public-private partnerships (or PPP for the Aussies) and other more complicated financing tools or instruments are developed and used to keep funding transport projects in times that almost all countries are opting for austerity measures.
The first results of this new approach are not that encouraging. The last year the big discussion in Brisbane regarding transport and traffic was the failure of the big privately owned transport projects, the Clem Jones (CLEM7) and the Airport Link tunnels. The companies that invested in those projects failed financially and went into receivership.
 |
| A Dart & Co |
Inevitably the luck of funding and the failures of the new privately funded models fired up again the discussion about the fundamental funding issues:
Should transport infrastructure be founded by the state? Is it fair for example for a tax payer that doesn't own a car to pay for a new highway? Should someone that rides a bike to work and never uses public transport to contribute with his taxes to the subsidization of the bus and train network? Should transport companies that use an industrial road be responsible for the maintenance cost of the road that they are the most frequent users?
Infrastructure Australia which is a statutory body, established under the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 and advises federal and state governments, investors and infrastructure owners on a wide range of issues like the country's current and future infrastructure needs, mechanisms for financing infrastructure investments, and policy, pricing and regulation and their impacts on investment took the discussion a step even further. In the latest annual report - the national infrastructure plan they suggest that the user pays - user says model should be adopted. That means that not only the user should fund the infrastructure project by making a direct contribution but also in return the user will get a say on the level of service provided.
"A move to congestion charging will be needed if we are to reduce the growing economic burden of congestion and make best use of existing network infrastructure," Again this statement of the same report raises many questions as it is a totally different approach from the one major Australian cities were taking till now.
So does this mean no more new tolled transport infrastructure? Until today the thinking was, that a new road/ bridge/ tunnel that would reduce congestion and give people the option of shorter travel times would attract traffic despite the price of the tolls because people would gladly pay for the time saved. As it was proved not too many people would do that and most would prefer a longer and cheaper trip which in the case of Brisbane, would also be more pleasant (shinning and not dull). So, are we moving in a direction that tolls would be introduced in existing roads that face congestion in a congestion pricing scheme similar to London and Stockholm?
 |
| The Spectator |
The debate started a long time ago and would probably last for a few more years. I expect that in the near future we would start discussing even more innovative approaches like crowd funding. And maybe who knows some day someone would decide to build and maintain a bus or two just because that would give him the right to name the buses after his wife or daughter, the same way a video game production company gave donators the right to have game characters named after them.
