A framework for transport planning in Australia: With special reference to UK Eddington transport study

Abstract

The Commonwealth (Infrastructure Australia (IA)) is putting growing pressure on the States to improve infrastructure planning and particularly planning for transport services. Given the Commonwealth of Australia’s domination of discretionary finance for infrastructure investment, and the status of the UK Government’s Eddington (National) Transport Study (2006) approach as the most recent and effective national planning exercise, it would not be surprising to see a push for an Australian National Transport Study along the lines of the UK Study. The UK Study ably met the needs of the UK Government, is laudable for describing the role of transport services in economic development, and advocates a big step towards economic rational allocation of resources and away from political allocation. This Paper suggests a different process for Australia while using the UK Study as a primary reference framework to place the recommended approach and tools in context. The paper continues the themes of another recent Paper (ITLS-WP-09-05)), Commentary on the Report to COAG by Infrastructure Australia. It does not comment on the place specifics of transport investment in Australia or in the UK Study, except by way of example. While this paper is about transport service, the underlying analysis and commentary applies to the other public infrastructure services such as water, energy and communications that are within IA’s purview. The paper is structured in four parts. The first looks at the purpose of planning studies and where they fit in the institutional arrangements for transport service provision. Using this institutional framework and in contrast to the UK Study approach, an on-going process of continuous improvement of decision-making for transport service provision is proposed for Australia based in part on World Bank experience. The second part looks at the impacts of transport service provision. The third looks at analytic tools appropriate to decisions regarding the allocation of resources for the provision of transport service with reference to the several Benefit/Cost, GDP and other measures recommended in the UK Study, and analyses the appropriateness of their application for Australia (and elsewhere). It suggests that the application of benefit cost analysis (BCA) in its various enhanced forms including wider external benefits, environmental and social impacts and value for money, as well as GDP impacts, misinterprets the nature of the decision-making processes involved and the purpose of investment appraisal. The fourth part briefly discusses several of the other seminal issues involved in service provision such as competition, markets, and revisits governance, finance and planning, again with reference to the UK Study (Volume 4). The final summary section sketches a strategy for implementation of the recommendations in Australia.