<span class="" id="parent-fieldname-description"> COMMENT: Despite a long standing recognition that Australiaâs transport policy planning lags way behind that of most other developed nations, our politicians seem unable to grasp that when it comes to good policy, they should be the last people to be involved, Mark Carter writes. </span> <p>I make no apologies for revisiting this theme that has come up many times before in this column, but I continue to be frustrated by the continuing ideological interference in transport planning in Australia and the resultant policy abyss that it creates.   <br /><br />The lead-up to next month’s Victorian state election was the catalyst for this week’s column, where the warring factions have traded claim and counter claim over public transport promises – basically making up policy on the run.<br /><br />Back in September the Victorian opposition Labor Party was advocating extending the South Morang suburban line further out to the expanding northern suburb of Mernda, which said it would build for between $400m and $600m.<br /><br />Only a few weeks later the incumbent Coalition party pledged to build the same link by 2020/21 for $700m with State transport minister Terry Mulder criticising Labor’s plans.<br /><br />As Rail Express reported last week, Mulder said, “Labor has costed Mernda Rail at $400m to $600m. It will actually cost $700m.”<br /><br />“[Opposition member] Danielle Green should tell the truth and explain what sort of half-rate service Labor’s cheap and nasty pledge will deliver,” Mulder said.<br /><br />A similar stoush between the two parties had erupted only a few weeks earlier over train frequencies on the Geelong line with each side trying to outdo each other.<br /><br />While it’s great to see public transport making re-election headlines, one comes away with the feeling that this is largely policy based on perceived voting intentions and not a great deal of thought has gone into any of these announcements<br /><br />The Napthine Government’s pursuit of a rail link to Avalon Airport, which has very, very few commercial users, in advance of a rail link to Tullamarine beggars belief. It’s even hard to see the politics behind that one, given that it is hardly likely to garner a huge number of votes.<br /><br />On several occasions in the past I’ve held up the state of New South Wales to ridicule. The ‘on-again, off-again’ saga of the North West Rail Link, and its associated sideshows such as the CBD Metro, will one day provide a great doctoral thesis for someone in the field of urban transport planning.<br /><br />Such a saga is the epitome of the political and ideological interference that plagues transport planning in Australia.<br /><br />However, love here or loath her, NSW Transport Minister Gladys Berjiklian has at least tried to break through the confusion and has come up with a strong pro-rail stance that, while still obviously politically motivated at times, has tried to break the transport policy gridlock that plagued NSW for so long. <br /><br />Unfortunately Gladys is not perfect and has let herself down big time with the planned closure of the heavy rail link into Newcastle line. <br /><br />Despite a definitive study being carried out under the previous Labor administration that concluded there was no benefit from closing the line, Gladys caved into pressure from the developers and reversed the decision.<br /><br />There is no science to this, the perceived benefits of closing the line spruiked by the developers are merely guesswork. What highlights the stupidity of the decision is that Gladys’ proposed light rail link is an afterthought and detailed plans are nowhere near ready.<br /><br />If you’re going to close a rail link in the 21st Century you sure as hell need to have some solid idea as to what it is you are going to replace it with, and not some half drawn line on a map.<br /><br />Or as one correspondent said recently, “Interesting to note that the $350-odd million set aside for light rail from Wickham to Newcastle would greatly improve reliability and travel times on the existing Sydney-Newcastle rail services, where the benefits could be spread more broadly.”<br /><br />The smaller states don’t get off lightly either.<br /><br />In Queensland, the Newman Government back-flipped on the previous government’s Infrastructure Australia endorsed Cross River Rail project, instead opting for the much cheaper, but less flexible, combined Bus and Train tunnel option.  <br /><br />The Western Australian Government turned its own Transport Plan on its head by opting for the an Airport rail link over a CBD rail light rail project, despite the Plan rating the latter ten years ahead as a much needed priority. No doubt the focus groups when confronted by a project that involved digging up city streets versus shiny new tunnels in the outer ‘burbs, voted for the tunnels? <br /><br />Of course it’s not only the major parties that choose to politicise transport policy. The Greens have recently demonstrated that they are more than prepared to put politics before policy <br /><br />An article in the Canberra Times this week by the Australia Institute’s Richard Denniss says, “It is hard to think of a more breathtaking act of political obstructionism than the Greens’ refusal to support the reintroduction of petrol excise indexation. <br /><br />“The Greens have campaigned for a decade for taxes to be used to discourage fossil fuel use. The Greens wanted the carbon tax to apply to petrol. &hellip&hellip it is unbelievable that they have repeatedly refused to support the Abbott Government on this budget measure.” <br /><br />The article goes on to say that The Greens are the only block of votes that are at all likely to support a ‘hip pocket’ issue like higher petrol taxes. And, in turn, they are in a prime position to negotiate other policy outcomes in exchange such as, for exmple, protecting the renewable energy target.<br /><br />Denniss says that in the 14 years since John Howard decided to scrap the indexation of fuel excise, the Treasury has missed out on some $35bn in revenue.<br /><br />Now I am aware that Abbott has been quoted as saying that this additional revenue will go into roads, but I’m with the thought that any measure, no matter how small, that discourages the use of fossil fuels, especially car usage, has to be a good thing.</p>
