The Campaign For Better Transport

Brian Rudman comments on the Minister of Transport’s decision to investigate a public private partnership for electrified trains, and finds that Sydney’s example may not be one to follow:

That contract is running months behind deadline and the New South Wales Premier is very grumpy. The Sydney tender process proper started in August 2004, presumably after months of intricate, contract design work. The successful consortium was finally announced in November 2006.

Hailed as Australia’s biggest PPP scheme, the Reliance Rail consortium agreed to deliver 626 carriages within six years, the first to start appearing in 2010. The deal included a 30-year maintenance contract. The NSW Government says it’s worth $3.6 billion, however the Sydney Morning Herald last month calculated the true figure, once financing costs and the bill for maintenance over 30 years are included, at $9.5 billion. Nearly a third of that figure will go in interest payments and the like.

The full article here is well worth a read.  I’ve also resurrected an article from way back in 2002 by John Shaw, former board member of Transit, on the folly of public private partnerships.

Brian Rudman at the Herald:

Each time I write in praise of public transport, I end up having to eat my words. On Monday I was lauding the increased patronage figures in Auckland but by 8.15 on Wednesday night, I didn’t care whether I ever saw another commuter bus in my life. Mainly because, for the past hour, I hadn’t…

The electronic helper kept reassuring me 005 was DLY until just before 7.30 when it just disappeared. The next Link was now 28 minutes away – so much for the 15-minute gap – and the rain had taken a break, so I started walking, muttering like a crazy man about lying real-time indicator boards.

This has been my experience of late with this service as well.  I actually went as far as phoning the Maxx complaint number – 3666 400, but the operator convinced me that I had merely just missed my bus. There is nothing, I repeat nothing, more frustrating than waiting at a bus stop for a bus that never turns up.

It will be great if ARTA could respond to 1) why there was a delay and 2) what the plan is for the dodgy indicator boards.

Both Brian Rudman and, perhaps surprisingly, Jeremy Sole of the New Zealand Contractors Federation are waking up to the radical changes proposed for changes to national land transport funding.

Rudman:

As Auckland Regional Transport Authority chairman Mark Ford noted, “to put it simply, where there has been investment, there has been growth on rail and bus”. These were 3.7 million trips that were not taken in a private car on our congested roads. Yet our masters still have difficulty grasping the obvious message. Provide decent, reliable public transport and people will use it. At both local and central government level, the penny doesn’t seem to have dropped.

Jeremy Sole:

There are also other concerns. While the Government is firmly committed to investment in transport infrastructure to achieve economic growth, it appears this will be subject to funding availability.

The recent $25 million a year drop in the lower threshold of the predicted spend range in the Government Policy Statement for 2010 and 2011 indicates Government’s expectation that councils will not be committing their own funds to roading projects – so not drawing down the Transport Agency funding share.

The federation’s concern has been what will happen to those funds earmarked for local projects, if they are not taken up?

The Government has recently agreed to allow unused funds to be diverted to other transport projects but the mechanism for this is not yet clear.

It is vital that local projects such as arterial roads keep rolling forward. One way to do this would be low-interest Government loans to local councils – restricted to essential infrastructure projects.

Yes. Every category of transport funding is about to be slashed apart from new state highways. We’ll post the details shortly.