Monash Infrastructure

Room 220, 20 Research Way

Monash University

Clayton VIC 3800

17 June 2016

Michel Masson

CEO, Infrastructure Victoria

Level 34, 121 Exhibition Street

Melbourne VIC 3000

Dear Mr Masson

Thank you for the opportunity for Monash Infrastructure to provide a submission to Infrastructure Victoria’s options paper All Things Considered.

Monash Infrastructure was established in 2016 to facilitate industry and government engagement with Monash University’s extensive capabilities in infrastructure research and education. Monash University’s infrastructure research strengths are transport, water, structures, information and communications, and planning and management. Monash’s people can provide the expertise, resources and international knowledge networks to solve infrastructure related challenges, develop new technologies, build industry capacity and inform government planning and policy-making.

In its submission, Monash Infrastructure coordinated input from across Monash University, with a focus on the public transport and integrated water management options that are presented in All Things Considered under multiple infrastructure needs. The development of the commentary and information presented in this submission was led by the following academic experts at Monash University:

· Professor Graham Currie - Chair of Public Transport, Director Public Transport Research Group

· Professor Geoff Rose - Director Institute of Transport Studies

· Professor Ana Deletic – Professor of Water Engineering, Associate Dean Research Engineering, Director Monash Infrastructure.

Public transport

1. Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth

LBS: Growth area bus service expansion

There is a need for a tiered structured solution for bus services including use of alternative transport services (e.g. companies like Uber/Lyft) and demand responsive bus services to address the last mile problem. A blanket adoption of a higher service level as presented in this option would be wasteful. Tiered services with concentration of frequency on major corridors are required. We need alternative solutions for social based services in low density areas.

New and Expanded Assets

There are no Smartbus options in the strong population growth areas of outer/peri-urban Melbourne. Smartbus services are needed; a sequence of investment with Bus Rapid Transit as a first step to rail makes for better investment than waiting a long time for rail to be implemented.

SYM: South Yarra Metro Station

This option is a major asset and a sensible investment. Although the Melbourne Metro tunnel is expensive, the benefits to Melbourne are clear and will be of high value. If this option is not developed, it would be a major omission in addressing transport infrastructure demands in a high density area.

2. Address infrastructure challenges in areas with low or negative growth

PTA: Public transport alternative use of taxis or hire cars

In practice it is unlikely that transport network companies (e.g Uber) can work effectively in low demand areas or at low demand times.  They are geared towards high demand peaks not low demands.  Alternative regulation is needed to recognise this, otherwise regulatory reform to achieve service at low demand times is wishful thinking.

4. Enable physical activity and participation

All Things Considered does not present any options to increase public transport ridership to address this issue. Public transport ridership has strong links to increased physical activity.

6. Improve accessibility for people with mobility Challenges

PTA: Public transport alternative use of taxis or hire cars

A significant issue is the negative impact Uber has had on wheelchair taxis; one of the most critical infrastructure assets for working wheelchair users.  Regulatory reform to include transport network companies within a safe and fair framework is needed but this should include protections for the public interest, notably for wheelchair users. Transport network companies are not a magical solution to the mobility needs of people with mobility challenges and indeed represent a potentially significant risk. The needs of people with mobility challenges need to be considered in any regulatory reform.

PTV: Public transport accessibility

Legislation under the Disability Discrimination Act requires full access as a mandatory starting point. Public transport accessibility should not be phrased as an option in All Things Considered, because disability access is a requirement of law. Achieving it is highly problematic and ways to achieve this should be the focus of the discussion. We should not be implying we may not be implementing this measure by implying it is an option.

9. Provide Access to High Quality Education Infrastructure

A major concern is the poor quality of access to major education and research clusters such as Monash University Clayton Campus and La Trobe University. Provision of rail extension to these locations should be a major priority.  Consideration of a 'Universal Access' type public transport ticket has been highly successful in international experience.  Such measures have the capacity to substantively improve access to major university campuses.

10. Meet Growing Demand for Access to Economic Activity in Central Melbourne

CPM: Car parking management

Monash University research has identified significant problems with the Parking Congestion Levy.  See: William Young , Graham Currie , Paul Hamer (2014), Exploring the Impact of the Melbourne CBD Parking Levy on Who Pays the Levy, Parking Supply and Mode Use, in Stephen Ison , Corinne Mulley (ed.) Parking Issues and Policies (Transport and Sustainability, Volume 5) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.291 – 316. In particular car drivers don’t pay the levy hence it is having very little impact on travel.  Critical to an effective strategy is the need to charge the road users directly.

TNP: Transport network price regime

We believe that the pricing regime needs to go further than just considering peak versus off-peak travel and takes into account other social costs such as police resources devoted to road transport and environmental costs. The pricing should cover more than just the capital costs of infrastructure provision.

HSP1: Hoddle Street/Punt Road public transport prioritisation and RSA: Road space allocation charges

This is a good idea but far too limited if considered only for Hoddle St/Punt Rd.  Over the last five years provision of priority roadspace or intersection priority for public transport has not increased despite growth in ridership and a clear need to provide priority for more efficient road vehicles carrying higher volumes of passengers. We need to not only allocate roadspace; more time for public transport priority at intersections is needed.  In addition the quality of provision of signal priority for trams and buses needs to improve.

Options requiring further development

Automated car technology is mentioned (option ACT) however driverless buses and driverless trams or trains are omitted.  This is unfortunate because driverless approaches to public transport act to reduce costs, increase service levels and improve safety.  Driverless buses will be particularly attractive because they increase road sharing and will not increase congestion which is a risk with automated car technology.

Integrated water management

1. Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth

All Things Considered presents wastewater system augmentation (option WWS) but omits options for decentralised and low-energy water management such as stormwater harvesting and wastewater/grey water passive treatment and recycling. Cities are net producers of water - the volume of wastewater and runoff generated within urban areas (stormwater) is larger than the volume of water used in all major Australian cities (Figure 1). Harvesting or recycling of these water sources have good public acceptance and their use can bring multiple benefits to our communities.

Figure 1: Urban water use and discharges per household [footnoteRef:1] [1: PMSEIC – Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and Innovation Council Working Group (2007), Water for Our Cities: building resilience in a climate of uncertainty, a report of PMSEIC Working group, June 2007.]

14. manage threats to water security, particularly regional and rural areas

SRH: Stormwater harvesting and re-use for non-potable purposes, WSA1: Water supply augmentation, WI02: Water infrastructure optimisation through governance arrangements

We strongly support decentralised water harvesting and “green” treatment systems in Melbourne and regional cities. This should be done using green Water Sensitive Urban Design Technologies (WSUD), such as rain tanks, stormwater wetlands, raingardens and greywater recycling using green and living walls (Figure 2).

Urban stormwater is a large untapped source of water. For example, the volume of stormwater discharged annually in Melbourne is similar to the entire annual water demand of the city (Figure 1). Its harvesting, via rainwater tanks and a range of passive treatment and distribution methods, is based on natural processes (WSUD technologies). Urban stormwater harvesting and treatment has considerably lower energy requirements than many other water treatment and supply solutions. Most importantly, stormwater harvesting can protect and enhance the health of urban streams by restoring flows and water quality to approximately pre-development levels; in fact stormwater is the only water source whose use will benefit the environment, rather than degrade it. Acceptance of stormwater harvesting by Australian communities is also significantly greater than it is for wastewater reuse. It is therefore unsurprising that during the Millennium drought in Victoria over 100 stormwater harvesting systems were built, largely without participation from the water industry. If the stormwater resource is combined with other water sources, stormwater storage costs are not prohibitive; e.g. using stormwater during wet months saves storage water in dams for dry months.

Figure 2: Decentralise green water treatment technologies: left: raingarden for stormwater harvesting, a Monash university pilot in Kfar Sava, Israel; right: tree pit for treatment of stormwater in Docklands, Melbourne

17. Improve the health of waterways and coastal areas

SRH: Stormwater harvesting for non-potable purposes, SRQ: Stormwater water quality management.

The WSUD stormwater management systems, such as rain tanks, wetlands, rain gardens, swales, and bio-retentions provide multiple benefits to our cities. Apart from providing a valuable water source, as discussed above, they offer the following services:

· Reducing nuisance flooding. We now have proven that WSUD systems reduce flooding in the densely populated areas, for events that happen once in two to 10 years. This is crucial for areas of the city that undergo rapid densification, such as Melbourne’s inner and middle city suburbs, where more and more of surfaces becomes impervious, generating more runoff even during typical storms. Climate change will only aggravate this process.

· Manage pollution. Stormwater is polluted and if untreated causes considerable damage to local streams and bays. For example, approximately half of the nitrogen discharge into Port Philip Bay comes from Melbourne’s stormwater. WSUD systems are effective in removing the harmful pollutants from stormwater, and as such the planning regulations of Victoria require their instalment in greenfield sites.

· Increase the value of nearby properties. A recent study on property prices of 4,437 home sales in Sydney, concluded that stormwater rain gardens increased property values by approximately 6% for houses within 50 metres of a rain garden ($54,000), and by approximately $1.5 million in the aggregate for all single family houses within 100 metres of a typical intersection with rain gardens[footnoteRef:2]. The return on investment, in the case of these small stormwater management measures, is indisputable since their capital costs are in the order of $15,000 - $50,000. [2: Polyakov, M., Iftekhar, S., Zhang, F., and Fogarty, J. (2015). The amenity value of water sensitive urban infrastructures: A case study on rain gardens. 59th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural & Resource Economics Society, Rotorua, NZ, 10-13 February 2015.]

· Reducing thermal stress and therefore aiding public health. By maintaining water in the landscape and increasing green cover, WSUD systems reduce local temperatures during heat extremes e.g. tall trees used in stormwater raingardens as in the case in Docklands. The cooling impact of WSUD systems has been shown in Adelaide.

· Increase liveability of our cities. Large stormwater wetlands, ponds and lakes increase the amenity of suburban parks, while rain gardens, green roofs, and green walls can make a substantial impact on increasing the liveability of commercial areas and densely populated inner city areas; wellbeing of urban dwellers is linked to the level and quality of green space, so the impact of distributed stormwater management vegetated systems cannot be neglected.

Australia has made major advances in stormwater management in the past few decades. For example, our stormwater technologies have been exported to some of the most advanced water management regions in the world, including Israel (Figure 2) and Singapore. However, to stay at the global forefront of decentralised water management Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering (ATSE) in a recent submission to a senate enquiry proposed the following[footnoteRef:3]: [3: ATSE, Submission to Senate Environment and Communications References Committee Inquiry into Stormwater Resource in Australia, May 2015]

1. Effective WSUD (both stormwater and wastewater) technologies need further development, as they currently lag far behind other water treatment technologies.

2. Ongoing investments should be secured for implementation of WSUD technologies; e.g. whenever possible, renewal of ageing infrastructure should be undertaken in line with WSUD principles. This will ensure that we can delay augmentation of existing drainage infrastructure, making considerable savings. Robust economical evaluation models that can assess the total community costs and benefits of the complex stormwater systems need to be developed. The present economical models are too narrow in scope, and cannot assess the true value of investments made into green WSUD systems that provide high amenity value to our cities while delivering on basic water services.

3. Water management should be linked strongly with urban planning processes to maximise the wider benefits of WSUD technologies to Australian communities. Currently water infrastructure plans are not strongly linked with urban planning, thus leading to ‘lost opportunities’ in the development of Australian cities.

4. Our governance frameworks for managing multi-functional stormwater assets must advance to greater sophistication, if we are to transition our cities to more liveable places.

We would welcome any opportunity to further discuss these areas. Please contact Professor Ana Deletic, Director Monash Infrastructure on (03) 9905 2940 or ana.deletic@monash.edu or Clare Meeker, Chief Operating Officer, Monash Infrastructure on (03) 9902 0387 or clare.meeker@monash.edu for further information.

Yours sincerely

Professor Ana Deletic

Director Monash Infrastructure

Clare Meeker

COO Monash Infrastructure

7