Further to the re-election of Brisbane’s Mayor and my post about NSW’s lack of preparedness for the end of cheap oil, I’ve come across a post by Robert Merkel at Larvatus Prodeo on how Melbourne looks like it’s gearing up to build an extra rail tunnel and an extra road tunnel.

It is pointed out that the problem with road tunnels is that the operators don’t give a hoot about the conditions on the roads surrounding their tunnels as long as they can get people in and out and have them pay the toll for using the tunnel. This got me thinking about the private ownership of major transport infrastructure. The private business walks away with a piece of infrastructure and the ability to collect tolls for 30-40 years and the government walks away with something which they can point to as evidence of them wanting to reduce congestion.

The private business, though, runs transport infrastructure as a revenue generator rather than a service due to the profit motive. Brisbane (and Sydney’s) airport train is a perfect example of this. It costs me around $14 to get from my house to the airport via train when a journey of similar length would cost much less.

If the Qld government were to own the AirTrain line, it would likely be subject to the same pricing system as the rest of the TransLink network and run more frequently in order to reduce congestion on East-West Arterial Rd, Lomandra Drive, Sandgate Rd and the Gateway Motorway. The aim of this train line should be to reduce congestion and make getting to the airport as easy as possible (providing a service) but instead the private ownership means the price is high, trains run infrequently and are quite often far below capacity.

Brisbane Airport Corporation isn’t interested in reducing the congestion on the Gateway Motorway because it knows that people will catch planes for domestic and international air travel regardless of traffic conditions. The alternatives to driving to the airport are catching the AirTrain or catching a taxi (and paying an access fee to do so). BAC will make its money one way or another.

Often, the PPP (Private-Public-Partnership) contracts have clauses that prohibit the government from providing a service which competes with the privately owned tunnel. An example of this is the funnelling of Epping Rd traffic into the Lane Cove Tunnel. Another impact of such clauses is the hamstringing of public transport systems including new busways, new railways and improved routes for buses. This creation of a short term fix (tunnel) creates a whole load of long term problems such as poor public transport infrastructure, increased car dependence, air quality problems, congestion around the entry and exit points of the tunnel and the potential to bankrupt the city (see Campbell Newman’s tunnels’ cost blowouts).

Building new road space doesn’t fix the problem it sets out to fix and creates new problems. So why is it so popular? Motorists make up a majority of city commuters in Australia and evidence of a big project to solve a big problem is far more popular than putting in a low-visibility system to actually solve the problem. Why retool the systems you already have when you can add a huge new project that shows how serious you are about fixing it? Public transport will only be seriously considered as a congestion fix by governments when oil prices shoot through the roof, public transport users constitute more than 50% of the population or the ALP start losing their inner city seats (which are most affected by road tunnels) to the Greens.

Your response: