<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-5" data-turn="user" data-turn-id="e65dbe94-e3b6-47f7-b62a-9cbb30c9bf79" data-turn-id-container="e65dbe94-e3b6-47f7-b62a-9cbb30c9bf79" dir="auto">Time &amp; Place’s plans to transform the former David Jones factory building in Surry Hills into a mixed-use residential precinct have gone on exhibition through the NSW Government’s In-fill Affordable Housing pathway.</section>

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-6" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:f4d533b7-64a5-413d-86fd-5c99649c2b73-2" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:f4d533b7-64a5-413d-86fd-5c99649c2b73-2" dir="auto">
The Marlborough House proposal, lodged for the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/marlborough-house-47-97-marlborough-street-surry-hills-nsw-2010">47-97 Marlborough Street</a> site, would see the adaptive reuse of the heritage-listed warehouse building alongside the construction of new residential additions and a separate apartment building on the northern portion of the site.

The proposal seeks approval for 172 apartments across three buildings, including 15 per cent affordable housing managed by a community housing provider for at least 15 years from occupation.

<img alt="Marlborough" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="5d1d3c2a-bf13-47d6-a335-7c01102cdee1" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.29.36%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=cjMYrbR.BLUlWH4dar0RVDDo0bG.u2YT" />

Interior view from the Northern Building Penthouse overlooking the park

&nbsp;

The redevelopment is planned for the prominent 3,413 sqm site bounded by Marlborough Street, Goodlet Street and Lansdowne Street, directly opposite Eddie Ward Park and around 200 metres from the Surry Hills light rail stop.

Time &amp; Place acquired the former David Jones building in 2024, marking the first time the property had changed hands in around 50 years.

Designed by Wardle, the proposal centres around the adaptive reuse of the former David Jones factory, originally constructed between 1913 and 1935 in the Inter-War Chicagoesque architectural style.

Wardle noted in its Architectural Design Report that the building “occupies a significant place in the industrial and cultural history of Surry Hills” and at its peak was “the largest department store manufacturing facility in Australia, employing over 800 people and fuelling the growth of Sydney’s fashion and retail industries.”

The practice said the project positions itself “not as an isolated intervention, but as a contributor to the civic, social, and architectural grain of the precinct.”

The proposal would deliver 75 apartments within the retained southern heritage building, 59 apartments within the central addition, and a further 38 apartments within the new northern building fronting Lansdowne Street.

Planning documents show the scheme would comprise a mix of heritage apartments, new-build apartments, townhouses and penthouses.

<img alt="Marlborough" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="57758518-40a3-4b83-958c-d06e96a2cffa" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.29.42%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=VerlX9ST5xgBi8.1_YRsqdWTJeT6ygjs" />Interior View of the Heritage Building Apartment

The development would also include a ground-floor retail tenancy on the corner of Marlborough and Lansdowne streets, rooftop communal open space, a landscaped pedestrian link along the western edge of the site, and basement parking accessed from Lansdowne Street via a car stacker system.

&nbsp;

The scheme emerged from a competitive design process run by Urbis, with Wardle ultimately selected as the winning architect ahead of FJC Studio, TZG, Architectus and Wilkinson Eyre.

The Design Integrity Panel later described several aspects of the Wardle scheme as fundamental to the project, including “the stepped character of the new addition to the north of the site”, the landscaped western pedestrian link, and the “garden arrival” experience separating the original Marlborough House from the heritage addition.

Wardle’s design heavily references the site’s industrial and heritage history, while also responding to the surrounding Surry Hills streetscape.

The Architectural Design Report describes Surry Hills as “a finely grained neighbourhood with beautiful and expressive brickworks throughout the suburb,” with the proposal introducing a material palette intended to sit comfortably alongside the existing warehouse fabric and neighbouring terraces.

The report also outlines the project’s relationship with Eddie Ward Park and the broader landscape context of the area.

“Marlborough House occupies a site of deep cultural memory and the neighbouring Eddie Ward Park is of local ecological significance, where natural systems, topography, and stories have long shaped human experience,” Wardle noted in the report.

The architects said the proposal sought to “rebind built form to Country” through landscape, materiality and the adaptive reuse of the heritage structure.

<img alt="Marlborough House" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="9ae3f2f9-c85f-477a-a6f8-b43f6cb97c41" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.29.53%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=B.qUCLqRvJOR.n9CvYcTpaknIX9LuqKZ" />

The project is also being progressed under the NSW Government’s in-fill affordable housing provisions, allowing developments that include affordable housing to access additional height and floor space incentives.

Under the plans, 2,593 sqm of the project’s floor space would be dedicated to affordable housing, slightly exceeding the required 15 per cent threshold.

In its Design Excellence Strategy, Urbis said the project aimed to “sensitively adapt and enhance the heritage-listed building on site through alterations and additions that preserve its historical significance” while delivering “high-quality market and infill affordable housing development in Surry Hills.”

Time &amp; Place has been one of the most active developers nationally in the last 12 to 24 months. Late last year they completed&nbsp;The Queensbridge in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/southbank-vic-3006">Southbank</a>, a mixed-use tower with 353 apartments and a hotel. They are currently selling Park Modern, 246 apartments near the famous Botanic Gardens in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/south-melbourne-vic-3205">South Melbourne</a>, and have future projects, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/the-wilmot-173-burke-road-28-hope-street-glen-iris-vic-3146">The Wilmot</a>&nbsp;in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/glen-iris-vic-3146">Glen Iris</a>, the redevelopment of the Northcote Plaza, and another tower in South Melbourne.

The developer broke into Sydney just a few years ago with Two Tides in Manly. They have another project nearby, which is at the ultra-luxury end of the market on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/buildings/shoreline-manly-beach-89-90-north-steyne-manly">North Steyne</a>, fronting the beach.

It is also continuing to work through the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-time-place-settles-on-design-for-the-chimes-potts-point-redevelopment">redevelopment of The Chimes building</a> on Macleay Street in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/potts-point-nsw-2011">Potts Point</a>, as well as a project on <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/time-place-to-take-on-mosman-apartment-market">Mosman's Redan Street</a>.
</section>

Joel Robinson

First look: Time & Place unveils Marlborough House redevelopment designs for former David Jones warehouse in Surry Hills

The residential transformation of St Kilda Road is set to continue into with more new apartment plans for the sought-after boulevard.

Wing Tai Asia has lodged plans for a major residential tower at 464-466 St Kilda Road, replacing the former VACC House with an 18-storey mixed-use development designed around a retained heritage podium and a sculpted contemporary tower.

The proposal, prepared under Victoria’s Significant Residential Development with Affordable Housing pathway, would deliver 325 apartments and ground-floor retail across the prominent 4,653 sqm boulevard site in Melbourne’s St Kilda Road North Precinct.

The project centres on the adaptive reuse of the site’s heritage-listed VACC Building, an eight-storey office designed by Bernard Evans that has occupied the address for decades. Planning documents state the development would involve “carefully dismantling and conserving off-site the original metal fabric of the podium visible from St Kilda Road,” before reinstating it as the defining frontage of the new scheme.

Above the restored podium, Wing Tai is proposing a curvilinear residential tower. The scheme includes 172 one-bedroom apartments, 63 two-bedroom apartments, 66 three-bedroom apartments, and 24 four-bedroom apartments, alongside two ground-floor food and beverage tenancies fronting St Kilda Road.

The tower has been designed with substantial articulation and variable setbacks to minimise perceived bulk and maintain view corridors along the boulevard. Urbis, which prepared the planning report, said the design “has been significantly articulated through a curvilinear design” with “an interplay with materials, façade expression and depth” to create visual separation and visual interest.

The proposal also includes 254 basement car spaces, landscaped pedestrian links connecting St Kilda Road and Queens Lane, and a biophilic landscape strategy featuring canopy trees, raised planters, cascading greenery and a glass oculus pool overlooking the eastern frontage.

Planning documents confirm the $270.1 million development will contribute 3 per cent of project costs to the Social Housing Growth Fund as part of the application process.

Wing Tai acquired the St Kilda Road property in 2018 alongside Abacus Property Group for $95.38 million, before later consolidating ownership of the site. The property previously served as the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce headquarters for around 60 years.

The transformation of the St Kilda Rd boulevard is already beginning to materialise, with a number of high-profile projects recently completed, launched, or approaching launch as developers continue to back the long-term appeal of the precinct.

Among the most notable recent completions is Louise by Samuel Property Group, just off the strip on Queens Lane, the same pocket Hirsch &amp; Faigen recently launched The Queensbury. Mirvac is too on the same street with The Albertine, which is approaching completion.

Dexus recently secured approval for its slice of St Kilda Road, while Gurner also has approved plans for the precinct.

Wing Tai unveils 325-apartment St Kilda Road tower on former VACC House site

Malaysian developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/s-p-setia">SP Setia</a> is the latest to jump into St Leonards booming Transport Oriented Development precinct.

The developer, which has previously delivered Sapphire by the Gardens apartment development in Melbourne, identified the Atchison Street site in 2023. It filed a Scoping Report around 12 months ago, and now has revealed the designs for the new&nbsp;40-storey mixed-use tower.

The State Significant Development Application covers <a href="https://next-portal.urban.com.au/projects/14650/summary">20-22 Atchison Street</a>, a 1,374 sqm site positioned between St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cox-architecture">COX Architecture</a>, the project would deliver 181 apartments, above a four-storey commercial podium, five basement levels, and new public domain works along Mitchell Street. The apartment mix comprises 35 one-bedroom apartments, 39 one-bedroom-plus-study apartments, 85 two-bedroom apartments, and 22 three-bedroom residences.

The proposal has been lodged as a shop-top housing development under the NSW Government’s TOD planning pathway, which allows increased density around key transport infrastructure. The site sits within the recently rezoned Crows Nest Accelerated TOD Precinct.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b799673d-48e2-46b0-801a-0e33a9330100" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20site.png?VersionId=dPh0UfwfaHpbFL1R7H1cbZNbIW0CHbCC" />

SP Setia acquired the Atchison Street site as part of its continued expansion into the Australian apartment market. In comments made to City &amp; Country (The Edge Malaysia) in 2023, SP Setia President and CEO Datuk Choong Kai Wai described the acquisition as “a strategic move” aligned with the group’s post-pandemic market recovery strategy.

“Our target for this exceptional development is local and overseas buyers, including first-home buyers, downsizers and investors,” Choong said.

The tower has been designed as a slender vertical form rising from a mixed-use podium, with COX Architecture positioning the development as a response to the evolving St Leonards and Crows Nest skyline.

“The purpose of the project is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality housing at a strategically located site and deliver a built tower outcome that is consistent with the desired future character of St Leonards and aligns with the TOD controls,” the design report stated.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b1a85eee-76f7-436c-a6da-73ba827b9b13" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20entry.png?VersionId=dA9jHGPMcm.dDbwk4QfxqWiY5bfh3UVt" />

The podium would incorporate retail uses fronting Atchison Street, commercial tenancies, landscaped communal areas, and pedestrian improvements along Mitchell Street. Vehicle access and loading would be consolidated via Atchison Lane.

Residents would have access to more than 665 sqm of communal indoor and outdoor spaces, while the development proposes 96 parking spaces across five basement levels.

The proposal also includes a commitment for 10 per cent of residential floor space to be allocated toward affordable housing through a monetary contribution.

COX said the tower form responds directly to the emerging high-density character of the precinct while seeking to maximise solar access, cross ventilation, and outlook from apartments.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2163f85c-f63b-4be3-aafa-f8763976cec5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Article%20Feature%20Image%20%28Grid%29_5.png?VersionId=WiAmtIKJ6.ZQ41EtYEQ1fol7AeorKBlL" />

“The building is orientated towards north,” the Apartment Design Guide compliance report noted, adding that the tower’s slim form was driven by the constrained inner-urban site dimensions.

The design also incorporates landscaped setbacks and communal open space at podium level, intended to soften the interface with surrounding streets and improve pedestrian amenity.

The project adds to a growing wave of redevelopment proposals reshaping St Leonards and Crows Nest following the opening of the Sydney Metro City line and the NSW Government’s push for higher-density housing around major transport nodes.

Last week Stockland filed plans just down the road. They want to build a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/601-pacific-highway-st-leonards-nsw-2065">52-storey tower on Pacific Highway</a>.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">First look: Stockland plans 52-storey, 538-apartment St Leonards tower&nbsp;</a>

First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> has revealed plans for a new mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, advancing a proposal that would reshape the southern gateway to Newcastle’s city centre with one of the city’s tallest residential buildings.

The State Significant Development proposal, now on exhibition, seeks approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/bowline-10-dangar-street-wickham-nsw-2293">43-storey tower</a> immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange. The project would deliver around 200 apartments, including 42 affordable housing dwellings, alongside 99 co-living units, a 171-room hotel, retail space, and new public domain integrated through the site.

The scheme marks a significant escalation of plans previously approved for the site. Urban Property Group took over the prominent 2,904 sqm parcel, where excavation and demolition had already commenced under an earlier consent for a 14-storey mixed-use development.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="58a96dd9-407f-4d20-86b4-94e4bfeef74b" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20podium.png?VersionId=LGlf08pdFGAZDzvx_CXC4XakHNZRuEE0" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/sjb-architects">SJB</a>, the tower has been conceived as a landmark transit-oriented development anchored to the Newcastle Interchange precinct. The proposal includes 245 build-to-sell apartments across a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom residences, as well as two penthouses. Fifteen apartments and one operational unit are earmarked for NDIS housing. The co-living component would add a further 99 units, while the podium would accommodate retail uses and hotel facilities.

SJB said the site presents “a valuable opportunity to anchor the precinct by setting the standard for design, active ground planes and character at the key southern gateway.”

The architecture responds directly to the site’s position beside major transport infrastructure and within one of Newcastle’s fastest-evolving urban renewal precincts. The tower form sits above a sculpted podium designed to frame new public spaces, including a through-site pedestrian link connecting Station Street to Hannell Street, landscaped plazas, and activated retail edges.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a7bd6ff0-f7db-4ce8-a6dc-ea56e72c6149" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20lanne.png?VersionId=xzf39VADyhj7zBQY2I9fx9vI62u2tuSb" />

The design report describes the project as part of the broader transition of Wickham into “a vibrant, high-quality mixed-use urban precinct” that leverages proximity to the station, open space, and regional connectivity.

A detailed public art strategy has also been prepared for the development. The strategy positions the project as “a transit-oriented development of state significance at the gateway to Newcastle’s city centre” and outlines a series of integrated artworks responding to Newcastle’s industrial and transport heritage.

Creative Road’s curatorial framework for the project, titled Unveil, draws on “stratified surfaces, carved volumes, and light-filled apertures” while referencing Newcastle’s transformation from an industrial city into a contemporary education and technology hub.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="77a882bb-14b1-4d28-99ff-9438e39508c0" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20site.png?VersionId=cevgo_vN0eKPK78P8YcEu3mKPLkpFqE7" />

The proposal is being advanced through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway after being declared State Significant Development in June 2025. The accompanying scoping report states the development aims to “maximise the site’s proximity to the Newcastle Interchange by delivering transit-oriented development” while increasing housing supply and affordable housing provision within the Newcastle LGA.

Urban Property Group’s plans align with the long-term strategic vision established under the Wickham Master Plan, which identified the interchange precinct as suitable for substantial uplift in height and density. The current proposal would significantly intensify that vision, positioning the tower among the tallest developments proposed for Newcastle.

The site sits immediately north of the Newcastle Interchange, bounded by Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street. It is surrounded by a rapidly growing cluster of residential towers and mixed-use projects that have emerged following the completion of the light rail and transport interchange.

First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s latest tower at Wickham interchange

Bottega House has completed settlement of a landmark riverfront site in Macquarie Street, St Lucia, representing its first major Brisbane development.&nbsp;

Positioned on the banks of the Brisbane River, the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/180-macquarie-street-st-lucia-qld-4067">premium site at 180 Macquarie Street</a> features uninterrupted river frontage in one of Brisbane’s most tightly held residential precincts.&nbsp;

The proposed development, currently under assessment with Brisbane City Council, has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/plus-studio">Plus Studio</a> with interiors by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/mim-design">Mim Design</a> and will deliver a boutique collection of premium residences positioned specifically for owner occupiers and downsizers.&nbsp;

The residences are set to redefine luxury apartment living in the area, with a focus on architectural quality, refined finishes, landscape integration and elevated amenities including curated wellness facilities, resort-style pools and recreation spaces rarely seen in the local market.&nbsp;

Exclusive sales for the project will be led by Keenan &amp; Byrne, ahead of an anticipated launch later this year.&nbsp;

Bottega House Managing Director Nick Malloch said the project reflects the group’s ambition to deliver a highly curated residential offering within one of Brisbane’s most tightly held precincts.&nbsp;

“This is an incredibly rare riverfront opportunity and one we have approached with a long-term perspective,” Malloch said.&nbsp;

“Our vision from the outset was to create a boutique collection of residences that feel more like private homes than traditional apartments, with generous proportions, refined finishes and exceptional amenity throughout."

Malloch says there is a&nbsp;lack of premium owner-occupier stock of this quality in the market, particularly for downsizers wanting space, privacy and a true lifestyle offering without compromise.&nbsp;

"Demand is expected to be strong given the scarcity of premium riverfront opportunities of this nature within Brisbane’s inner-west."&nbsp;

Bottega House secures landmark riverfront site in St Lucia 

Infrastructure

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/64233/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A new report, commissioned by the Australian Automobile Association and compiled by SGS Economics and Planning, has estimated transport costs for a typical household in Australia’s capital cities.
The calculations factored in public transport spending and car costs such as registration, fuel, insurance and tolls.
In a media release accompanying the report, the Australian Automobile Association said that “the average Australian family is spending up to $22,000 every year to get around.”
Is that accurate?
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
The Conversation asked SGS Economics and Planning and the Australian Automobile Association to clarify several aspects of their calculations. You can read their full response here.
The SGS Economics and Planning full report explains in detail the assumptions that underpin their snapshot of transport costs for a typical household in Australia’s capital cities.
Their hypothetical household in each capital city featured a couple in their 30s with children. The adults were employed, lived in a detached house and had two cars, which were driven 15,000 and 10,000 kilometres per year. The car that drives 10,000 kilometres per year is assumed to be ten years old and owned outright. The car that drives 15,000 kilometres per year is assumed to be less than three years old, purchased new and financed with a car loan. In addition, one member of the household is assumed to travel by public transport into the CBD and home again, five days a week.
In each city, the hypothetical household is assumed to live in middle to outer ring suburbs, with a relatively high population density, good access to public transport, and – in the case of the Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane householders – use toll roads to access the CBD.
These assumptions and estimates contained in the report appear valid to me. Overall, the report seems to be a reasonable attempt to deconstruct transportation costs. Assumptions about both cars being used for more than 10,000 kilometres per year while one person commutes daily via public transport could be questioned, but this would only make a difference at the margins.
<h2>Report finds national average annual transport cost is closer to $17,000</h2>
The Australian Automobile Association said the report “reveals the average Australian family is spending up to $22,000 every year to get around” – but the key phrase there is up to.
The authors of the report looked at two consecutive quarters of transport data – Q1 of 2016 (quarter one, January to March) and Q2 of 2016 (quarter two, April to June). The report found that:
Annualised figures reveal a total transport cost for Q2 of $21,791 in Sydney, while the annual cost for Hobart is $7,691 less, at $14,100.
So the figure of $22,000 relates to Sydney, not the national average. The higher costs in Sydney relate to tolls, registration and compulsory third party insurance, the report said.
In fact, the researchers estimated that the national average transport cost for the second quarter of 2016 is around $323.36 a week, or an annual national average of $16,814.72, as shown in this table from the report:
<h4><a href="/images/2016/08/29/image-20160822-30370-cazbbd.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></h4>
<img src="/images/2016/08/29/image-20160822-30370-cazbbd.png" alt="">
 
Household total weekly transport costs, Transport Affordability Index: August 2016. Transport Affordability Index: August 2016, SGS Economics and Planning.
So the Australian Automobile Association’s assertion that the report reveals the average Australian family is spending up to $22,000 every year to get around is correct – but just remember that’s the upper end of the estimates range detailed in the report, as this chart shows:
<h4><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/134905/area14mp/image-20160822-30403-176wdv4.png" style="font-size: 1em;"></a></h4>
<h4><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/134905/area14mp/image-20160822-30403-176wdv4.png" style="font-size: 1em;"></a></h4>
<h4><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/134905/area14mp/image-20160822-30403-176wdv4.png" style="font-size: 1em;"></a></h4>
<h4><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/134905/area14mp/image-20160822-30403-176wdv4.png" style="font-size: 1em;"></a></h4>
<h4><a href="/images/2016/08/29/image-20160822-30403-176wdv4.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></h4>
<img src="/images/2016/08/29/image-20160822-30403-176wdv4.png" alt="">
<h4>
Household total weekly transport costs SGS Economics and Planning 
</h4>
The report found that the national average annual spend on transport is closer to $16,814 or $17,000 if you round up.
<h2>Checking the numbers against other sources</h2>
The report’s estimate of roughly $17,000 in annual household transport costs for the national average is higher than transport cost estimates produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
But it’s not uncommon for different economic models to produce different results – it all depends on what assumptions you factor into the modelling.
The last Household Expenditure Survey, conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2009-2010, indicated that Australians spent an average of $193 per week on transport expenses. After adjusting for inflation, that is the equivalent of $221 per week in 2016, or $11,531 per year.
Included in the ABS survey’s definition of transport costs is motor vehicle purchase, fuel, registration, insurance, parts, public transport fares and several other expenses.
In their response to The Conversation, SGS Economics and Planning said the discrepancy was partly because the ABS' Household Expenditure Survey:
"includes figures on transport costs from a range of households, from couple families with kids in the outer suburbs to inner-city singles who rarely drive to regional pensioners… We chose to focus on couple families with children and the costs they are likely to face as they are the most common family type in Australia… Couples with children are likely to have higher transport costs than other family types such as singles, single parents or couples without children, as they are larger and more likely to be working."
You can read more of their response <a href="https://theconversation.com/full-response-from-sgs-economics-and-planning-64308" target="_blank">here</a>.
The ABS data treats the major part of a car purchase as an asset (i.e. is not included in expenses related to travel), so if you treat household motor vehicles as a cost rather than an asset you can get a number that approaches the annual figure in the recent SGS Economics and Planning report.
The report assumes regular toll road usage in the capital cities, which, of course, doesn’t apply to all of us. And it also makes the debatable assumption that one member of the household uses public transport regularly while another member uses toll roads with similar regularity.
Naturally, the biggest contributor to overall costs may be how expensive your car or cars are (and, thus, any associated repayments), the level of which is largely at the discretion of the household.
<h2>Verdict</h2>
Overall, the SGS Economics and Planning report appears to be a reasonable attempt to deconstruct transportation costs, but is specific to a particular type of household within each city rather than all households who travel.
The Australian Automobile Association’s statement that the report “reveals the average Australian family is spending up to $22,000 every year to get around” is technically accurate, thanks to the inclusion of the qualifier “up to”.
However, it is worth noting that the $22,000 figure (which applies to a typical Sydney family) represents the highest end of the range of estimates contained in the report.
The report found that the national average annual spend on transport is closer to around $17,000, which is higher than transport cost estimates produced by the ABS in the past. 
Review
I agree with this FactCheck and its conclusion.
The really important missing cost is the time lost to travel, especially when it is over one hour per day. Marchetti’s constant, a concept based on the research of Italian physicist Cesare Marchetti, posits that anything more than an hour of travel time per day is problematic.
It would be interesting to compare options than the hypothetical “average Australian household” example given in the report. For example, both the dollar costs and time costs in Australia could be reduced by having one fewer car for the average family, and living in a location that allows that option to become viable.
My own research suggests that many cities around the world are increasingly opting for greater investment in public transport and higher density urban redevelopment, rather than building housing on the fringes of cities where houses cost less but transport costs are huge. – Peter Newman
Matthew Beck is senior lecturer in Infrastructure Management, University of Sydney an author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/matthew-beck-90705" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Does the average Australian family spend up to $22,000 every year on transport?

<html><body>
A $20 million road link expected to improve access and attract businesses to Brisbane's new Western Business District - the Metroplex Westgate development in Wacol, has been officially declared open at an event attended by Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk.
The new road and bridge across Bullockhead Creek have converted Wacol’s Boundary Road into a continuous thoroughfare, opening a new route to the Ipswich and Centenary motorways. It has been built to accommodate up to 18,000 vehicles per day, which will improve local traffic flow.
The road works were funded by GPT Metroplex Joint Venture and supported by the Brisbane City Council through infrastructure rebates and include an upgraded overpass directly connecting Progress Road to the Ipswich Motorway.
Managing director of GPT Metroplex Peter Macgregor and GPT Group’s head of Capital Transactions Jonathon Johnstone were the first to cross the new Bullockhead Creek Bridge on bicycles, with Mayor Quirk at the helm of a fleet of Volvo trucks.
"Construction of Boundary Road and Bullockhead Creek Bridge provide the missing link and connectivity to the Ipswich Motorway - the key elements that underwrite the success of Metroplex Westgate," Macgregor said.
The $350 million Metroplex Westgate will comprise 300,000 sqm of industrial, commercial and retail floorspace, along with 17 hectares of green space and nature corridors. It is being marketed by Cushman &amp; Wakefield and Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL).
Volvo recently said it will open its new Australian headquarters and dealership at Metroplex Westgate in 2017. Several other brands, including building products manufacturer Ardex Australia, returnable packaging solutions provider Loscam and fuel retailer Puma Energy will also take up space at the industrial site.
"We wanted to cement Wacol as South East Queensland's industrial capital and activate Metroplex Westgate as Brisbane's new Western Business District and key centre for manufacturing and logistics," GPT’s Johnstone said.
"To achieve this it was crucial to upgrade the road network to provide businesses with fast access to motorways, South East Queensland's CBDs, airports, rail lines and ports."
Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said the $20 million road access would be a vital link for the Wacol site, which would be a future economic driver for the region and attract new technological and industrial investment to the city.
The first stage - Metroplex South - is now selling with a limited number of smaller lots remaining, ranging from about 3,000 sqm to 1.7 hectares.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Brisbane's new industrial park Metroplex Westgate gets $20 million road upgrade

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
One of the startling facts about the Brexit vote was the deep division between the city of London and the rest of the country.
There was clearly a sense that change was working to the advantage of the urban elites, and often to the detriment of people who lived outside those privileged areas.
The recent Australian election reveals some of the same division but within the major cities rather than between city and the regions. Inner-city areas voted quite differently to the suburbs.
The fight over Melbourne’s East-West Link road project played out in those terms. The plan was heavily opposed by inner-city residents who had access to good public transport (trams, trains, buses, bicycles etc) and supported by residents of the suburbs who wanted improved cross-city road transport. The inner-city elite won.
We now have a similar but more egregious case evolving in Melbourne. The state government is supporting the construction of a project called the Western Distributor. It is basically a plan to improve the flow of goods in and out of the Port of Melbourne (which is in the CBD). This provides a significant benefit to the people of the western suburbs – that is, to the poorer half of the city.
There are two advantages to the city’s west. It will dramatically reduce the number of trucks passing along suburban streets and it will reduce travel times from the west to the north of the city. The government’s evaluation is that it will:
… take 22,000 vehicles including 6,000 trucks off the West Gate Bridge daily, remove up to 6,000 trucks from local streets in the inner west, improving amenity, air quality and safety … [and] reduce serious injury crashes by 20 percent.
The Victorian government promotes the benefits of the Western Distributor Project.
There is also a broad economic advantage to Victoria as a result of better logistics flows. Melbourne is a major container port and improvements to the movement of freight produce advantages for all Victorians: the project will “cut travel time to the port by up to 50%, and deliver an annual A$35 million saving to the freight industry”.
Opposition based on self-interest
The inner city is opposed to the project. The grounds put forward are revealing. City of Melbourne Greens councillor Cathy Oke said:
No city in the world is encouraging cars into the CBD so I can’t see how this project is a winner for our liveability status.
The state Greens MP for inner-city Melbourne, Ellen Sandell, makes the same argument:
No modern, global city is trying to bring more cars into its CBD. We should be investing even more in public transport, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and ways to get trucks off streets in the west – not new freeways that bring cars into the city.
These are clearly selfish propositions. Inner-city residents do not want any more cars in the city regardless of the benefits that might accrue to other residents of Melbourne, and regardless of any broader economic benefits for the city and the state. The fact that the people of the west are poorer, have worse public transport, worse health outcomes and high levels of unemployment, is seen as unimportant.
A recipe for social divisions
These are the sort of elite positions that created Brexit and the broader political unhappiness in Europe and the US. If the inner-city residents are going to be this selfish, then we can expect to see some political response from the suburbs.
The inner city is spoilt. Inner-city residents have free trams in Melbourne, paid for by people in the suburbs. Inner-city residents have all of the Melbourne arts precincts and all of the cultural venues, also all subsidised by people in the suburbs. The inner city also has all of the major sporting venues, again all subsidised by the suburbs.
If we are to avoid the rise of populist concerns seen in other countries, the inner-city elite need to change its attitude. Rather than dividing the society by rejecting change that might hurt rich inner-city dwellers a little but provide substantial benefits for the rest of the city, these sorts of changes need to be considered fairly and discussed reasonably.
Residents in inner-city Melbourne (and inner-city Sydney and Brisbane too) have lower unemployment, higher pay and much better cultural amenity than people in the suburbs. Fairness requires some change and better support for the poorer parts of the city, not the richer parts.
Governments need to respond too by reducing the subsidies to the inner city. Even some clearer presentation of the state budgets to separate out the impact of spending on a geographical basis would help. Let us start spreading the benefits more widely.
Rodney Maddock is vice chancellor's fellow at Victoria University and Adjunct Professor of Economics, Monash University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rodney-maddock-107543" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Inner-city bias: the suburbs need a fair go

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Value capture secures some of the benefits delivered by public investment to offset the costs of provision. The notion has been around in various forms for a while, but recently gained steam. Prime Minister’s Malcolm Turnbull’s Smart Cities Plan touts value capture as a way to better distribute “the costs and benefits in publicly funded infrastructure to facilitate a project that may not otherwise occur”.
But there’s a lot of confusion about what value capture actually means and how it might operate in Australia.
<h2>What is ‘value capture’?</h2>
Public investment in a new rail line or motorway can generate huge increases in surrounding land values. In part the increase derives from improved accessibility for existing residents and businesses. High windfalls also arise once land has been rezoned to capitalise on higher development opportunities generated by the new infrastructure.
Since public investments and decisions are intended to maximise community benefit, it seems unfair and inefficient that some private landowners profit immensely from the process while others gain little or may even be disadvantaged.
Value capture mechanisms seek to rectify this by clawing back at least some of the increased business revenue or land value. These funds are then allocated towards the initial costs of infrastructure provision. In the case of a planning change, land value uplift can also help ensure that affordable housing for low income groups is included in new development.
<h2>How does value capture work?</h2>
The PM’s Smart Cities Plan doesn’t offer much detail as to how a value capture model would operate in Australia. Several different approaches are used overseas, but their potential transferability is unclear.
Transit value capture is used in Hong Kong and Japan to fund railway lines and new town development. This is a project-based approach which packages investment in railway and housing development together. Commercial holdings along the railway line deliver an ongoing revenue stream as does long term investment in residential development. In Hong Kong, a significant program of public rental and subsidised home ownership has also been delivered as part of this model.
Project-based transit value depends on access to large swathes of low cost land (in Hong Kong the government retains land ownership, so the land component is essentially free). It also depends on ongoing residential and commercial investment along the new route over time, which in turn assumes buoyant economic growth. When the Japanese economy stagnated, the potential for railway operators to self-finance their projects did too.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is used widely in the US to finance new transit and urban renewal projects. The model draws on anticipated increases in business revenue or rents in areas where incremental value uplift will occur. A portion of the increase is captured via a special property tax which is then allocated to repay the debt.
Australian local governments can also introduce special purpose levies to fund specific items through property taxes or rates. The Gold Coast light rail project for instance, was partly financed via the council’s annual transport levy (now around $111). However, since the levy applies to all ratepayers, rather than confined to areas where direct value uplift occurred, this doesn’t represent value capture in the strict sense of the term.
Value capture through the planning process is another approach. Unlike development contributions, which in Australia are used to internalise the costs of servicing a particular project (like roads, carparks, or footpaths), so they aren’t borne by existing ratepayers, value capture focuses on the benefits (often called “betterment” or “planning gain”) accruing from public investment or planning decisions.
One way of capturing value created through public investment or planning is to levy the charge on the first property transaction (ie. land sale) following the change. Another is to add an additional levy to existing contributions paid by developers.
The NSW government’s foreshadowed “Special Infrastructure Contribution” for new residential development along the Parramatta Rd light rail corridor ($200 per metre of gross floor area) is a recent example.
While this amounts to around $20,000 an apartment (at most about 3% of current sales prices), industry lobby group the Urban Taskforce claim the levy will discourage development and hurt home buyers. That’s cheeky since house prices are set by the market – which in the case of a light rail corridor will rise by much more than 3%. Ultimately the Taskforce worries that value capture places “an unfair burden on particular sectors of society” by which they presumably mean landowners and developers.
<h2>What would need to happen to extend value capture models in Australia?</h2>
Besides the politics, a number of issues must be addressed if value capture is to be extended in Australia. First, calculating value uplift is complex. Often land prices rise well in anticipation of investment or a planning change, so robust framework for value capture should be in place well before such speculation might occur.
Second, value capture should not discourage development or make land acquisition more expensive. This means close attention to project viability when setting capture requirements. Third, robust mechanisms for collection through either the planning process, as an ongoing property tax, or when land is sold, are needed.
Finally, although the current conversation focuses on transport, over time there will be pressure to fund other socially beneficial infrastructure. Two obvious candidates are schools, which also improve land values, or affordable housing, which is often lost when land values rise.
However fuzzy current conversations about value capture may be, the Commonwealth’s new interest in cities and the need to support more affordable homes near public transport, is welcome. So too the recognition that public investment and policy changes in urban and regional areas generate enormous value, which can and should be shared more widely.
Nicole Gurran is professor - Urban and Regional Planning, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicole-gurran-759" target="_blank">here</a>.
Stewart Lawler is lecturer in Property and Built Environment, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stewart-lawler-262628" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

What is ‘value capture’ and what does it mean for cities?

<html><body>
The privately funded $63 million Bennelong Bridge linking the Sydney suburbs of Wentworth Point with Rhodes in Homebush Bay has been opened, cutting the travel distance between the two suburbs down from 8km to 330 metres. 
<img src="/images/2016/05/27/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-27%20at%2012.01.14%20PM.png" alt="">
The official opening began with a traditional Welcome to Country and Smoking Ceremony by Aboriginal elders Uncle Max Eulo and Uncle Allen Madden, in honour of its namesake Bennelong. 
<img src="/images/2016/05/27/thumbnail_160522_BennelongBridgeOpening_0200.jpg" alt="" width="872" height="581">
(L to R) Sekisui House Australia Managing Director, Toru Abe, Homebush Bay Holdings, Michael Narunsky, Homebush Bay Properties Michael Nasser, Billbergia Group, Managing Director, John Kinsella
The bridge was developed under a voluntary planning agreement by four Wentworth Point landowners headed by Billbergia Group, together with Sekisui House, Homebush Bay Holdings and Homebush Bay Properties.  
<img src="/images/2016/05/27/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-27%20at%2012.00.06%20PM.png" alt="">
Wentworth Point Landowners representative Rick Graf said the bridge was an essential component in the delivery of one Australia’s biggest urban renewal developments, and spurring significant and positive urban change to the geographic heart of metropolitan Sydney. 
“As one of Sydney’s fastest growing regions, with Wentworth Point and Rhodes’ population expected to reach 45,000 within the next 10 years, the Landowners felt it was imperative that the required infrastructure was built ahead of the community demand,” said Mr Graf.  
 “Bennelong Bridge, which is entirely privately funded, is a great example of how business and government can collaborate to deliver public infrastructure at no cost to the taxpayer and bring enormous benefit to local communities.” 
<img src="/images/2016/05/27/thumbnail_160522_BennelongBridgeOpening_0230.jpg" alt="" width="833" height="555">
The Bridge is the first new bridge to be built in Sydney Harbour since 1995 and connects some 50 km of walking and cycling tracks throughout the area.  
Rhodes will now have access to the Wentworth Point ferry wharf and Wentworth Point will have direct access to Rhodes railway station and new bus routes. 
<img src="/images/2016/05/27/thumbnail_160522_BennelongBridgeOpening_0329.jpg" alt="" width="947" height="631">
</body></html>

Sydney's new $63 million bridge

<html><body>
A $5 billion infrastructure fund and an asset sale strategy announced in the WA Budget has been lauded by the top industry body though it expressed unhappiness with the failure to address the issue of tax reforms. 
”The announcement of a $5 billion infrastructure fund and an expansion of the state asset sale program is essential for the property industry to participate in WA’s economic transition and growth outlook,” Property Council WA executive director Lino Iacomella said. 
“The promised infrastructure fund should also be backed up with a state infrastructure strategy to enable the property investment and development sectors to plan ahead with confidence."
Iacomella added that the council was keen to see the initiatives the infrastructure fund would support, including projects like the Max Light Rail and the federal Smart Cities Plan. 
But the Budget once again missed an opportunity to start tax reform in WA, said Iacomella.
“After three successive years of property tax hikes it is disappointing that the budget has no plan to phase out land tax aggregation, which discriminates against investors that own more than one property. Similarly, this budget does not address the issue of seniors being stung by a hefty stamp duty bill when downsizing or stamp duty equity for off-the-plan property purchases.”
These would help improve housing affordability, promote high quality infill development and boost the economy, said Iacomella.
</body></html>

WA Budget Infrastructure fund key for property-led growth: Industry body

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
We are living in the most explosive era of infrastructure expansion in human history. The G20 nations, when they met in Australia in 2014, argued for between US$60 trillion and US$70 trillion in new infrastructure investments by 2030, which would more than double the global total value of infrastructure.
Some of the key players in this worldwide infrastructure boom are huge investors such as the World Bank. The past few years and decades have seen the rise of major new investment banks, such as the recently founded Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and the dramatic growth of funds such as the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES).
The new banks, along with traditional big lenders such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Asian, African, and Inter-American Development Banks, are very fond of funding big infrastructure such as roads, dams, gas lines, mining projects, and so on.
Some people had hoped that these banks would promote sustainable and socially equitable development, but it now seems that they could end up doing precisely the opposite.
<h2>The infrastructure tsunami</h2>
The next few decades are expected to see some 25 million km of new paved roads, thousands more hydroelectric dams, and hundreds of thousands of new mining, oil and gas projects.
The environmental impacts of the modern infrastructure tsunami could easily dwarf climate change and many other human pressures, as thousands of projects penetrate into the world’s last surviving wild areas. Roughly 90 perch t of the new projects are in developing nations, often in the tropics or subtropics which harbour the planet’s biologically richest and environmentally most critical ecosystems.
In these contexts, new infrastructures such as roads can open a Pandora’s box of environmental problems, by promoting widespread deforestation, habitat fragmentation, poaching, fires, illegal mining and land speculation.
For instance, our research in the Brazilian Amazon has shown that 95 percent of all deforestation occurs within 5.5 km of a legal or illegal road.
In Brazil, 12 new dams planned for the Tapajós River (and their associated road networks) are expected to increase Amazon deforestation by nearly a million hectares. Across the Amazon, more than 330 dams are now planned or under construction.
In the Congo Basin, an avalanche of new logging roads has opened up vast areas of rainforest to poachers armed with rifles and cable snares. As a result, the past decade has seen two-thirds of all Forest Elephants slaughtered for their valuable ivory tusks.
<h2>Fears of fast-tracking</h2>
Brazil’s BNDES has been heavily criticised for funding scores of environmentally and socially harmful projects, such as mega-dams in the Amazon. Fears were raised that China’s AIIB would behave similarly, especially when it announced that it would be using “streamlined” procedures for evaluating its projects.
Such fast-tracked procedures would differ from those used by other major lenders such as the World Bank, which after years of criticism have gradually implemented measures designed to limit the environmental and social impacts of its projects. Even these safeguards are often inadequate, as I and others argued in a recent article, but at least they are a big improvement over past practices.
When China opened up its AIIB to other countries, 30 nations initially joined as founding members. Many of these are western economies, including the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Norway, Australia and New Zealand.
At the time, many observers hoped that the bank’s broader membership would encourage the AIIB to moderate its hard-charging stance — perhaps fostering environmental and social safeguards more akin to those of the existing major lenders.
<h2>Race to the bottom?</h2>
But in fact the exact opposite appears to be happening. Rather than the AIIB raising its game, the World Bank recently concluded a review of its environmental standards — a move that has been criticised as weakening its environmental and social safeguards.
It is doing so, it says, in order to keep up with “new and varied development demands”. This is widely seen as a response to increasing competition with other investors such as the AIIB.
What will this mean? The global economy has slowed for the moment, giving environmental planners a tiny window of breathing space. But make no mistake, the infrastructure tsunami is still happening. If the global economy rebounds to a degree, the feeding frenzy of projects seen in recent years could easily return.
This could be bad news for the global environment and socially disempowered peoples. For instance, a 2009 analysis found that many developing nations had become “pollution havens” for projects funded by China or Chinese investors, who were attracted to nations with weak environmental controls. Notably, other advanced (OECD) economies showed no such tendency. 
Will other major lenders follow suit? Will there simply be a “race to the bottom” among big lenders in order to remain competitive? Only time will tell.
The other key question revolves around the role of western nations that are parties to the AIIB, such as the EU members and Australia. Do they have enough influence and determination to make a difference? With China, India and Russia holding the biggest shares of the bank’s capitalisation, it’ll be an uphill battle.
Right now, for the environment and human rights, the signs are all pointing in the wrong direction.
Bill Laurance is distinguished research professor and Australian Laureate, James Cook University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bill-laurance-4358" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Development banks threaten to unleash an infrastructure tsunami on the environment

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Infrastructure Australia’s latest report, Australian Infrastructure Plan, is a substantial contribution to better infrastructure planning.
For our cities, it cogently argues for more compact settlement patterns and transport pricing reform. However, it has some substantial weaknesses.
<h2>Integrating land use and transport priorities</h2>
The report’s discussion about the need for more compact cities is impressive but falls into the same trap as the state governments it criticises for failing to adequately integrate land use development directions and transport priorities.
The Infrastructure Priority List is rather light on initiatives that will support development of Australia’s four largest cities as more compact cities, rather than just cities with a compact core.
For example, while many public transport projects are included, these are mainly rail projects focused on feeding central business districts. These are worthy projects that will improve services and promote agglomeration economies. However, they deal with only part of the overall public transport needs for development of more compact cities.
The report clearly recognises that higher-frequency public transport services will be needed more broadly across our cities. It includes some rail projects for growth areas and bus rapid transport in some locations. It does not focus sufficiently, however, on public transport, walking and cycling projects that will help the middle suburbs achieve their potential.
These are the areas where much more employment and residential development needs to take place if our cities are to become more compact. Supportive infrastructure, particularly public transport and active transport, is central to this goal.
Another illustration of the failure to adequately integrate land use and transport thinking is the discussion of servicing the outskirts of our cities.
A major reason these areas have infrastructure and service delivery problems is that their development densities are too low. Yet I found no reference to the need to increase densities in outer urban areas. This would help with issues such as the need to improve public transport services and associated cost-recovery rates.
<h2>Urban governance</h2>
There is useful discussion in the plan on governance matters but also a significant hole.
International conversations about cities currently emphasise the importance of someone being able to “speak for the city” and of cities having more financial autonomy. These matters are important for cities to have the resources to perform their roles more effectively and be more accountable for their performance.
The plan looks at the need to reform local government, as well as project planning and delivery arrangements, but does not consider the central governance question: “who speaks for our cities?”. This is a challenge that is fundamental to our cities' common difficulties of sustaining long-term land use transport plans.
The apparent answer is “state governments” at present, but the recent Sydney introduction of a Greater Sydney Commission is a very innovative step to strengthen partnerships between the state and local governments at city-wide level. This move is recognition that the right answer needs to be wider than simply the state government. New governance arrangements should have figured more prominently in the report.
 
On funding, the report cites London on a number of occasions. There is no better city to use as a model, given that its population is about what Sydney and Melbourne can expect in 40 years – and that nobody does it better. London has already resolved the problem of “who speaks for the city”.
Under the mayor’s leadership, London is pursuing greater financial autonomy. The city is using measures such as value capture quite aggressively to increase its financial autonomy. The plan discusses value capture to an extent, but it needs a stronger focus on this as a great funding opportunity for more autonomous and accountable cities.
<h2>Externalities and pricing reform</h2>
From a public transport perspective, the weak treatment of externalities is the biggest problem in the plan.
There is much discussion of congestion and recognition of potential issues of social disadvantage, but not much systematic recognition of other externalities of cities, particularly transport externalities. The assumption seems to be, for example, that:
<ul>
<li>
agglomeration economies (or wider economic benefits more broadly) will be recognised somehow and dealt with at an appropriate time in some way;
</li>
<li>
greenhouse gas emissions will be dealt with by whatever Australia decides to do to meet its international obligations;
</li>
<li>
air pollution externalities will be met by vehicle emission standards; and
</li>
<li>
accident and health externalities do not exist or are not important.
</li>
</ul>
This provides scant comfort for the pricing reform the plan proposes. Road pricing reform is about more than recovering infrastructure costs and making motorists aware of congestion costs.
It is about improving the efficient allocation of scarce resources by making road users (and public transport users) more accountable for all the net external costs attributable to their travel choices. This includes (for example) the air pollution costs that remain after emission standards are applied, the accident costs not covered by insurance, rising health costs from a lack of exercise linked to motor vehicle dependence, and the costs of greenhouse gas emissions.
The report should have been much stronger on all the externalities involved in all modes of transport being internalised within reformed transport pricing arrangements.
The plan cites evidence that Australia’s urban public transport cost-recovery rates are low by comparison with similar cities elsewhere. If road pricing reform is implemented and includes a wide range of external costs, the case for increasing these cost-recovery rates is defensible, on two conditions:
<ol>
<li>
measures are in place to support particular disadvantaged groups (which could be through government funding of targeted fare concessions); and
</li>
<li>
external benefits of public transport (for example, agglomeration economies) are recognised as warranting cost-recovery rates that are less than 100%.
</li>
</ol>
<h2>Road funding model</h2>
The discussion about reforming the road funding model is hard to evaluate because the treatment of external costs of vehicle use is too vague.
If those costs were all internalised, as they should be for more efficient asset use, then it would be a mistake to hypothecate all the revenue in the road funding model to roads. The payments for air pollution damage, health and accident costs, for example, would need to be separated and be available for other uses that help lower such external costs.
More broadly, the process of determining road infrastructure priorities should not be ultimately devolved to the board of a road funding entity. It should be subject to an integrated process of planning land use and transport, to which that board contributes. Elected politicians ought to remain the ultimate decision-makers on major works.
<h2>Infrastructure planning vs integrated planning</h2>
The plan’s discussion about long-term infrastructure planning being “an opportunity to improve the value of community engagement” needs to provide more clarity about just what this means.
If long-term integrated land use transport planning had been undertaken more effectively in Australian cities, we would not need separate infrastructure agencies at federal and state levels.
If the report is suggesting community consultation on strategic infrastructure planning that is separate to what should be happening around long-term land use transport plans, which are becoming increasingly broad in international best-practice cities, then we will have very confused communities.
The long-term process of planning integrated land use transport should be where strategic consultation takes place. Infrastructure would be one of the matters subject to consultation and infrastructure priorities one output from the planning process.
The fundamental discussion point needs to be what we want our cities to be like in 30 to 40 years' time. Transport and other infrastructure discussions and priorities should be placed in the context of creating those cities.
<h2>The market’s role in public transport</h2>
The plan argues for more competition in the delivery of public transport services.
The cost savings it cites are essentially from settings where a private operator replaces a public operator (the greater the savings, the more bloated the initial public operator). International experience is that subsequent rounds of market testing, once a private provider is in place, deliver few savings.
Furthermore, recent research by David Hensher, from the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at University of Sydney, suggests that if you have an efficient private operator operating under a negotiated performance-based contract, this will be as efficient as a tendered outcome. The report does not seem to be aware of these important nuances.
<h2>Improving the policy debate</h2>
Infrastructure Australia has done much to raise the quality of debate about infrastructure planning and delivery. Its Australian Infrastructure Plan continues this contribution.
However, so far as our cities are concerned, the effectiveness of the plan will be compromised unless Infrastructure Australia walks the walk in terms of land use transport integration. It needs to align its priorities much more comprehensively with its well-framed land use development directions, and take a broader perspective on pricing reform and associated funding and governance matters.
This is about better integration and delivery in the broadest sense.
John Stanley is adjunct professor, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The Business School, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-stanley-115" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Australian infrastructure plan has some way to go to give our cities what they need

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The joint study between the Federal and NSW Governments into options for a rail link to service Sydney’s proposed second airport at Badgerys Creek must join the major sites for development in Sydney now and into the future. 
The new airport for Western Sydney must be connected by a rapid rail system to the Sydney CBD in order to maximise the success of the airport. Studies show that it doesn’t matter how far away the airport is from the CBD, it matters how long it takes to get from the airport to the CBD.
It is therefore good news that the State and Federal Governments are undertaking a study to explore options for the rail link.
One option that should be investigated is to connect existing and future large development sites that are likely to occur over the next few decades so that the rail system could also support proposed development. 
Sites that could be connected would be Liverpool, Parramatta, Camelia, Sydney Olympic Park, the Bays Precinct and Barangaroo. Each of these sites could become precincts for increased density, delivering housing and employment with some form of contribution towards the new railway.
It is important that when investing in new public transport infrastructure in Sydney that significant new density is encouraged along the route. 
The NSW Government should examine a range of special sites along the route that could become new urban centres in the future, and provide additional housing and employment opportunities for Sydneysiders.
Chris Johnson is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

mick.cee-iDmgDDAmu8

Rail options study for Western Sydney airport must link growth areas: Urban Taskforce

<html><body>
John McGrath has pinpointed the infrastructure projects set to trigger price growth in benefitting suburbs.
Major projects in Sydney are shortening the city commute and unlocking affordable outer suburban areas previously dismissed by city families for being too far to travel for work, he noted on his Switzer blog.
"This is providing growth stimulus for local property prices."
He pointed out that history shows that major infrastructure can have a direct and meaningful impact on property prices.
He identified the best new projects currently underway that he feels will have a big impact on local property prices. 
Sydney
New projects 
WestConnex - 2015-2023     
WestConnex is the biggest transport project in Australia today. It involves a 33km link between Sydney’s far west through to the city, airport and Port Botany precinct, bypassing 52 sets of traffic lights.
The project will result in significant travel time savings by car and bus. Commuters travelling by car from Parramatta will save 25 minutes to the CBD and 40 minutes to the airport. About 10km of new bus lanes will halve the CBD commute from Burwood. WestConnex will also divert 3,000 trucks off Parramatta Road per day.
<img src="https://www.switzer.com.au/assets/8128/20151109-mcgrath_normal.png" alt="" width="327" height="104" style="line-height: 1.3em;">
Past projects M5 East Motorway - 1998-2001 
<img src="https://www.switzer.com.au/assets/8130/20151109mcgrath1_normal.png" alt="" width="371" height="105">
The 2015 McGrath Report can be downloaded <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://issuu.com/mcgrathestateagents/docs/mcgrath_report_15?e=7704045/30983709">here</a>.
</body></html>

Infrastructure

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Infrastructure

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News