By Paula Wallace
With Australia approaching the transition to a low-carbon economy its timely to look at the role that rail transport could play in helping to lower greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions. And, how it may support other activities which promote energy efficiency and sustainable outcomes such as the design of urban and residential areas.
Rail Express spoke to a number of researchers and experts in the field of infrastructure and sustainability. Here, Alan Pears (Adjunct Professor at RMIT University) and Paul Mees (senior lecturer in transport planning at RMIT University) discuss the benefits of rail transport.
RE: Do you believe that rail for passenger and freight transport can provide a real alternative to higher ghg emitting modes of transport? Do you think it could make a real contribution to Australia meeting its ghg reduction targets?
AP: Rail freight and public transport are critical to Australias future low carbon footprint. The gap between the emissions per person for rail versus car is actually much wider than most research studies suggest because:
. it is the marginal greenhouse intensity of the transport mode that matters, not the average. For rail, the marginal emissions are much lower than the average, while for cars the average is similar to the marginal value: so using the average greenhouse intensity (as most studies do) seriously understates the benefits of shifting from road to rail
. rail can easily shift to renewables, simply by buying green electricity shifting cars to renewable energy sources is much more difficult and costly
. when a person shifts to rail, typically they travel less kilometres largely because they get more organised and combine a number of activities into one trip.
. a critical benefit of extending public transport (particularly rail) to outer suburbs is that it reduces the number of cars each household must own, cutting living costs (as 70 per cent of the cost of car ownership is not fuel) and increasing property values. This is a major equity issue, and will be critical to long term housing affordability in terms of peoples ability to stay in houses and keep paying off mortgages.
However, most of our rail infrastructure is very outdated – this provides an excuse and an argument for those who claim its capabilities are limited. Modern smart technologies combined with optimised rail infrastructure offers potential for very large economic and environmental benefits.
PM: Yes, and I note that Ross Garnaut agrees (see the transport chapter of his report – http://www.garnautreview.org.au/pdf/Garnaut_Chapter21.pdf). Mode share for rail freight is very low except on the Nullarbor corridor, and rail passenger performance is even worse than the United States.
RE: How can rail systems be designed, maintained and improved in a holistic way beyond state borders? Do you think there needs to be a greater national co-ordination of rail?
AP: More coordination is important, but investment is equally important. Enough money must be put on the table, then people need to coordinate its expenditure. Weve been doing it the other way around lots of talk but no money!
PM: There needs to be serious national planning, not just coordination and regulation. The Federal government has to finally do what the Australian Constitution allowed back in 1901 and take direct control of the major corridors, and of passenger services, just as every successful rail system in Europe has seen. The only place in Australia where this happens is Queensland and, for all its faults, Queensland is doing a lot better than the rest of the country.
RE: Do you think the Federal body Infrastructure Australia will be successful in identifying the most crucial areas of infrastructure in need of funding? Do you think this is an effective approach to take in terms of developing a
sustainable transport system?
AP: I dont know enough about their operations. A concern I have is that insufficient emphasis will be placed on virtual infrastructure such as videoconferencing facilities, training in use of VOIP etc, and that roads will dominate spending.
PM: No. They wouldn’t have a clue, and how could they. Only a hands-on authority with direct responsibility for maintaining the system and operating passenger services, can do the necessary analysis. What would the merchant bankers and company directors who make up IA know about rail?
RE: There is talk at the moment about infrastructure funding being an important part of Australia surviving the global crisis. Do you think the current economic status of rail has improved its sustainability potential, that is taking a triple bottom line approach?
AP: We need to make every investment a future asset under a low-zero carbon framework. Money spent on infrastructure that just reduces emissions marginally will simply create future liabilities. The problems for rail relate to freight and people management at the interfaces between the rail systems and local distribution. Thats where serious investment in smart solutions is needed. Australia needs to cut total emissions by at least 25 per cent by 2020 – less than 10 years away, and 95 per cent by 2050, 40 years away. In 10 years we will only replace, build or modify a small proportion of our transport infrastructure. So each investment in infrastructure must really be compatible with a very low or zero carbon economy – we wont have the time (or money) to have several rounds of rebuilding. Electric rail transport clearly fits the bill because it is efficient and easily shifted to renewable energy. It also is space efficient so it helps to increase the amount of space available for housing and other purposes in areas close to services. Rail freight is typically three to four times as efficient as road and can either run on electricity or biofuels – and use a lot less of them than trucks would. Of course we will need trucks for distribution but they could be electric, too.
PM: I think it has, and again Professor Garnaut appears to have spotted this as well. But the problem has never been economic performance it’s always been a virulent anti-rail bias within the Federal bureaucracy, which regards roads and air as the main games. This is the area where the most change is needed.
If you would like to read the first part of this story, click here.
To read the final part of this story, click here.
“