The Infrastructure Perspective. PIA Seminar 10 August 2009 Michael Kerry

Transcription

1 Putting the New SEQ Regional Plan into Perspective The Infrastructure Perspective PIA Seminar 10 August 2009 Michael Kerry

2 A Weighty Subject New Plan passes the weight & thickness test. Metrics SEQRP & SEQIPP 2005/26 plans = 1.3 cms & 680 grams 2009/26 plans = 1.9 cms & kilos What is in the extra 0.6 cms & 436 grams? Perhaps a rationale for an extra $90 billion Infrastructure spend.

3 New Plan retains & builds on original plan structure & strategy Key Drivers for the early review: Population growth Housing affordability Road traffic congestion Climate change Overall, a good plan and well written.but was there really a need to review early?

4 Some issues to resolve: SEQRP 1 year early key drivers could have been dealt with by implementing existing policy and facilitating results SEQIPP released 1 week before RP; now a disconnect. To be realigned next year! IRTP due in 6-9 months and program timetable originally aligned to inform RP.

5 Infrastructure Infrastructure to support regional settlement pattern & desired community outcomes 2005 plan Infrastructure to lead & support. Key principle to support desired growth pattern and help create a more compact urban pattern Infrastructure categories and asset classes covered are consistent t with 2005 plan Water management now reflecting projects and crisis management plans of past 4 years

6 Key Challenges Maximise use of existing investment Use of demand management strategies Balance existing with prioritized new investment Give priority to development in infrastructure rich areas (a new term) Minimise and off-set impacts Develop innovative funding & delivery models Support other policy objectives eg economic development & employment Onus clearly placed on developments to demonstrate how infrastructure can be provided and funded. Not clear how this relates to the stated desire to prioritise and sequence.

7 Key Words used in plan Infrastructure which supports - shapes - provides greater certainty t Coordinating prioritizing Best delivery options - sequencing - aligning Plan notes (p.125) Significant cost & service efficiencies can be achieved by improving coordination among individual infrastructure agencies & land-use & economic planning agencies. We would all agree, but does it need this plan to do this? Perhaps an OUM is required!

8 Infrastructure Agreements Develop mechanisms such as State t Infrastructure t Agreements for Development Areas where appropriate Almost identical wording to 2005 Plan & SEIPP When will the format be developed; ie what is expected? When is appropriate and who decides? Guidance is needed, but not more lengthy & complex guidelines (Development Area Delivery) talks only of Infrastructure t Agreements Assume these are the same animal? Negotiated on an area-by-area basis what is mechanism for this? Where new major infrastructure is required to Lead regional development New SEQIPP appears to be silent on SIAs

9 Relationship to SEQIPP Strength of planning concept is direct link between RP & SEQIPP SEQIPP is a planning & programming tool, closely linked to RP & annual budgets Next year (2010) the SEQ Infrastructure Plan will be reviewed to reflect the SEQ Regional Plan I am left with the question why next year? Observers asked where were the planners & coordinators at recent industry launch of fseqipp??

10 SEQIPP Comparisons total planned expenditure $ 32 billion* total $ 124 billion* Expenditure to date $16.4 billion Planned av annual spend $6 billion (note high of $8 billion for water grid etc in 07/08) *Power entities only included d for 5 years ahead

11 Planned Transport spend Active/PT* $42.6 billion - approx 45% Roads $49.2 billion - 52% Other $ 2.8 billion Total $94.6 billion *includes $15 billion for cross river rail Is this balance sustainable over the next 15 years to facilitate development of a high-frequency (& high-quality) bus & rail network across SEQ s urban areas? Several references throughout plan. Is the expenditure pattern consistent with the Sustainability and Climate Change policies?

12 Sub-regional Comparison total Transport only Western Corridor $13.78 billion Greater Brisbane $54.53 billion Gold Coast $ 9.36 billion Sunshine Coast $16.95 billion $94.62 billion Significant ifi caveats re funding eg subject to BCC or Federal funding

13 To Conclude A good plan, well written and continues the tradition Queensland is still a leader in regional planning & infrastructure co-ordination The questions I am left with include: Still a lot of process & planning; requires more: - Policy implementation - Project facilitation - Planning leadership & coordination - Clear, unambiguous guidance - Genuine partnerships There is a substantial program of projects where are the delivery mechanisms to ensure infrastructure delivery is timed and sequenced with the development? What is meant by sequencing? What account does the RP take of the GFC and impact on availability of funding how are alternative funding and delivery models being evaluated and packaged? p g