€¦ · web viewoffice of the infrastructure coordinator. development of a . national corridor...

Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator

Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy

This paper addresses:

1. the background to the development of a national corridor protection strategy;2. population and urban growth challenges that are driving the need to develop

new infrastructure corridors;3. key issues to be addressed in an effective corridor protection strategy; and4. principles for a national corridor protection strategy (see Appendix 4) which

would then be translated into bi-lateral agreements between the Australian Government and State/Territory governments.

1. Background to the Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy

Governments around the country – State, Territory and national – are increasingly acknowledging the need to identify, plan for and protect corridors and sites for major infrastructure projects.

To varying degrees, governments have been taking steps to translate policy intent and aspiration into practice.

Nevertheless, the protection of corridors is proving a significant challenge. Some jurisdictions have argued that protecting corridors is likely to be beyond their financial capabilities. Without changes in planning, funding and governance arrangements, there is reason to believe that the admirable corridor protection intentions of various governments will rarely translate into effective corridor protection practices.

Support and involvement from the Australian Government will be required. Changes will also be required at the State and Territory level.

With pressure on government budgets, translating the sound aims of major plans into practice will not be easy. Corridor identification, planning and protection requires some outlays in the short and medium-term in order to minimise or avoid long-term costs. Yet experience shows that governments often defer such outlays, especially for corridor protection, in order to give priority to projects that can be completed in the short-term.

The protection of corridors and sites is both a significant current challenge and an opportunity. The viability of projects valued in the several tens of billions of dollars Infrastructure AustraliaGPO Box 594, Canberra ACT 2601 AustraliaTelephone (02) 8114 1900 facsimile (02) 8114 1932www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au

(e.g. the Melbourne ‘Outer Metropolitan Ring/ E6 Transport Corridor’, freight access to/from the Port of Brisbane, access to ports in Western Australia, various corridors in and around Sydney, underground rail lines in several cities, east coast High Speed Rail) are dependent on corridor protection.

Although land acquisition costs for these and other projects would not all crystallise up front, the overall cost of land acquisition for these projects alone is itself probably of the order of $20 billion over the next few decades. As noted above, difficulties arise because corridor protection outlays are almost always ‘crowded out’ at budget time in order to make ‘room’ for short-term, perhaps less strategically important projects.

1.1 Past Approaches to Corridor Protection

During the mid-twentieth century, a number of jurisdictions applied processes that ensured future infrastructure corridors were protected from development.

In a number of cases, infrastructure now viewed as essential to the functioning of those cities were developed in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s on corridors that were identified and protected in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Examples include the M1 and EastLink in Melbourne and the M4 and M5 in Sydney. The rail line to Mandurah south of Perth is a more recent example.

Appendix 1 sets out a list of projects that have been developed on corridors reserved at some point in the past.

With a few case-specific exceptions (e.g. identification of a corridor in the late 1980s for a rail line to Melbourne Airport and the Outer Metropolitan Ring/ E6 Transport Corridor /E6 in Melbourne), the mechanisms used to protect those corridors were not applied as subsequent metropolitan plans in the 1980s – 2000s extended the reach of those cities. The reasons appear to vary from city to city. They include:

administrative changes (e.g. the winding up of the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works, and thereby use of the Board’s rating powers which had raised funds for key metropolitan infrastructure, including road transport corridor protection1);

adverse reaction to the reservation of a variety of road corridors when public attitudes to transport were shifting in the 1970s (Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney); and

actions to reduce public outlays, especially those linked to hypothecated funding arrangements (e.g. the scaling back of the Sydney Region Development Fund in the 1980s and 1990s).

1.2 Recent Experience

1 The MMBW’s rates were not used for rail corridors. Responsibility for rail corridors fell to the Victorian Railways Commissioners and later the Victorian Government. In practice, although a number of road corridors in Melbourne were protected, few if any rail corridors were protected. Like the Sydney Region Development Fund, the Board’s rates were also used for acquisition of metropolitan parks and to consolidate land for development (old and inappropriate subdivisions). The Board’s rates also covered water supply, sewage and drainage infrastructure and catchment protection.

Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator – Development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy

During the course of its review of capital city planning processes in 2010 and 2011, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Reform Council identified weaknesses in current corridor protection practices.

Appendix 2 sets out a list of projects that have been/are being developed, but in a manner that has been more difficult or costly than might otherwise have been the case.

Corridor protection arrangements in Western Australia, especially the hypothecated Metropolitan Region Improvement Tax, appear to provide a plausible basis for protecting new corridors in Perth.

Even so, the arrangements do not extend to growing areas on Perth’s fringe, e.g. in the Peel region. Nor do the procedures in Perth ensure that the other corridor protection characteristics listed below are part of the infrastructure and land use planning system.

In some other cases, governments are facing challenges following through on past decisions and efforts to protect corridors or sites for major projects. This has been an issue for the Outer Metropolitan Ring Transport Corridor in Melbourne and the previous Cross River Rail proposal in Brisbane. Both governments have grappled with difficult decisions to protect corridors and sites for these projects.

In other jurisdictions, effective corridor protection has been quite limited or ad hoc.

In summary, recent history suggests there is significant scope to improve current infrastructure planning processes across Australia so as to:

identify, plan for and protect corridors, sites and their environs for the development of future infrastructure networks (especially transport);

minimise the upfront cost of corridor and buffer protection and management; maximise the advantages of corridor protection, e.g. by ensuring that they

are integrated in metropolitan and regional land use strategies and that, wherever reasonably possible, corridors are reserved that are capable of being used by various infrastructure networks; and

ensure that the operation of infrastructure corridors (existing or prospective) is not compromised by development adjoining or in the vicinity of those corridors.

All four points above need to be included in an effective corridor protection regime, though the first two points – improved planning and cost effective protection of corridors - are the most critical.

1.3 The Costs of Failing to Protect Corridors

Limited or ineffective efforts to protect and acquire (on a timely basis) corridors for the development of infrastructure can add materially to the cost of infrastructure projects. Failure to protect corridors can result in:

preferred corridors being ‘built out’. As a consequence, projects have to be diverted or placed in tunnels. Diverting a project usually makes the project longer and adds to its capital cost. Placing a project in a tunnel adds significantly to its capital cost – multiples of 8-10 times the cost per kilometre are a guide – as well as adding to the project’s on-going operational and


maintenance costs. Recent tunnelled motorway proposals are projected to cost in the order of $600-1,000 million per kilometre to build. In the context of current and prospective transport budgets, planning for future transport links needs to identify lower cost options involving surface corridors;

projects being deferred or not proceeding at all because the cost of developing the project has become prohibitive. Even if the project scope remains unchanged, a deferred project is likely to be more expensive due to real increases in the cost of construction. Real increases in construction costs have been a feature of the Australian construction market for some years. These cost increases place greater demand on limited budgets; or

significant opportunity costs, i.e. where, despite poor corridor protection, projects proceed (albeit at a higher cost), in the process drawing on funds that might otherwise have been available to pursue other projects.

The additional capital costs arising from inadequate corridor protection have an economic as well as a financial dimension. This is because the additional costs are likely to lead to delays in the commencement of projects, thereby delaying the economic benefits, e.g. travel-time savings and agglomeration benefits, which would otherwise be associated with the project. In addition, projects that follow a longer route, e.g. to avoid development that has been allowed to occur, lock in lower travel time benefits compared to a more direct route.

2. Urban Growth Driving the Need for Corridor Protection

Australia’s major cities are projected to grow appreciably over the coming century. Recent population projections prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that Australia's population (estimated at 22.7 million people in June 2012) will increase to between 36.8 and 48.3 million people by 2061 (with a mid-level projection of 41.5 million), and to between 42.4 and 70.1 million people by 2101 (with a mid-level projection of 53.6 million).2

Medium level projections for the population of the capital cities3 suggest they may grow as follows from 2012 to 2061:

Sydney – from 4.7 million (M) to 8.5M Melbourne – from 4.2M to 8.6M Brisbane – from 2.2M to 4.8M Perth – from 1.9M to 5.5M Adelaide – from 1.3M to 1.9M Hobart – from 0.2M to 0.3M Darwin – from 0.1M to 0.2M Canberra – from 0.4M to 0.7M

It is highly unlikely that the larger cities will grow without the need for new infrastructure corridors. Plans for all capital cities involve some level of greenfield development, i.e. areas where corridor protection will be both most important and most productive and where buffer areas can be managed as development occurs. 2 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013) Population Projections, Australia, 2012 (base) to 2101, Catalogue No.

3222.0, Available at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3222.03 These figures exclude the population of nearby regions, e.g. the lower Hunter and Illawarra in the case of

Sydney, Geelong in the case of Melbourne, Gold and Sunshine Coasts in the case of Brisbane and areas south of Perth. In the case of Sydney and Brisbane, in particular, the figures for the relevant conurbation would be somewhat than the figures above.


Most metropolitan strategies aim to accommodate a substantial share of population growth (usually 50% or more) in brownfield areas. The operational integrity of existing corridors in those areas will need to be protected. Protecting new corridors in established areas presents its own challenges. Securing surface corridors is likely to encounter opposition from local residents. Underground corridors require careful management of interfaces with existing development, e.g. noise and vibration, as well as new development, e.g. the location and design of foundations and underground structures. The NSW Government, in particular, has experience here that could be shared with other jurisdictions.

The comments above should not be taken to mean that corridor protection is exclusively an ‘urban issue’. Identifying a corridor across rural land that is not otherwise subject to significant development pressures may still adversely affect the owner’s ability to sell the property and create a ‘moral obligation’ or expectation to purchase the affected property, even if there is no legal obligation to do so.

Although corridor protection is principally an issue associated with the development of public infrastructure, it can also be an issue for purely privately owned and operated infrastructure. For example, it appears there may be some issues around the protection and acquisition of corridors for privately sponsored freight rail projects in Queensland

Appendix 3 sets out a list of projects where corridor protection is required to support future, cost-effective infrastructure development.

3. Key Issues Shaping an Effective Corridor Protection Strategy

This section addresses a range of issues that will bear on the development of a National Corridor Protection Strategy.

3.1 Extent of Cross-Jurisdictional Support

Policy statements and plans by the Australian Government and various State/Territory governments demonstrate strong support for the concept of protecting corridors. The extent of support for specific corridor protection measures (including funding commitments) has yet to be tested.

COAG’s criteria for effective planning of Australia’s capital cities, agreed in December 2009, deal with corridor planning and protection. Criteria 3 states, “Capital city strategic planning systems should … provide for nationally significant economic infrastructure, including: (a) transport corridors … (c) intermodal connections … (e) the reservation of appropriate lands to support future expansion.”

3.1.1 Australian Government

The Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, The Hon. Warren Truss MP, recently stated in a speech that:


The Government is considering what role high speed rail could play as part of Australia's long term transport planning, which we will do as part of a broader approach that looks at the preferred options across all transport modes and in consultation with eastern state governments.

I plan, as the next stage, to consult with the states and the ACT to ascertain their support for the proposal and their willingness to begin the next step—reserving the corridor for a future high speed rail line.

This is not just innocent drawing lines on a map. It will be a major multi-billion dollar commitment. You cannot designate a corridor through our cities, suburbs, towns and rural landscapes without being willing to purchase the affected lands and that will be expensive and without an immediate return.4

In its Asian Century White Paper, the former Australian Government stated that “a long-term national infrastructure strategy … would be useful in developing a longer-term pipeline of projects and in reserving and developing nationally significant land transport corridors that will assist future project commencement.”[emphasis added]5

The Action Plan forming part of the previous Government’s National Urban Policy stated that the government former would:

Commission Infrastructure Australia to review how nationally significant transport, communications and energy corridors, sites and buffers in our major cities can be better planned, protected and managed [and, in turn]

Implement effective land use and planning strategies that …require planning and protection of economic corridors, sites and buffers in order to be eligible for Commonwealth infrastructure funding …6

Both the National Ports Strategy and the draft National Land Freight Strategy incorporate provisions supporting the need to protect corridors.7

The Infrastructure Finance Working Group (IFWG) concluded in 2012 that infrastructure planning needs to be improved. Protecting corridors would be consistent with the IFWG’s findings and recommendations, notably:

Recommendation 6: The Australian Government should strengthen its linking of infrastructure funding to State and Territory governments implementing agreed reforms including changes that increase their capacity for investment.

Recommendation 8: Long-term infrastructure strategies should be used to develop a more transparent, robust and funded pipeline of infrastructure projects and must include an early indication of the likely financing and funding

4 Truss, W. (2013) ‘Driving the Costs Out of Rail’, Speech to Ausrail 2013 conference, 28 November, Available at http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/speeches/2013/wts009_2013.aspx

5 Australian Government (2012) Australia in the Asian Century: White Paper, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 144

6 Australian Government (2011) Our Cities, Our Future: A National Urban Policy for a Productive, Sustainable and Liveable Future, p. 80

7 For example, actions 1.5 and 2.4 in the National Ports Strategy deal with corridors and buffers.


http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/speeches/2013/wts009_2013.aspx

sources, enabling the public and private sectors to efficiently deploy capital and resources.8

3.1.2 State and Territory Governments

As noted above, State and Territory governments are increasingly recognising the need to identify and protect infrastructure corridors and key sites in their planning strategies.

In a recent discussion paper on the development of a 40 year metropolitan strategy for Melbourne, the Victorian Government stated:

Planning will need to allow for future opportunities by preserving transport options, preserving land for major new facilities and services, and by acknowledging that places take time to develop.9

The NSW Government’s recent NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan identifies 19 transport corridors across Sydney that need to be protected to enable cost efficient, long-term development of the transport network.10

Agencies within the Western Australian Government are:

working on a proposal to government to address perceived deficiencies in the Peel and Greater Bunbury Region Planning Schemes;

considering funding options for infrastructure corridor protection and acquisition/compensation in the balance of the State not covered by the Region Planning Schemes.

Past Queensland transport plans have identified the need to protect corridors for new rail and road networks, sites for intermodal terminals, and to protect land close to freight routes.11

3.2 Extent of Stakeholder Support

Non-government stakeholders are identifying the need for governments to introduce effective corridor protection measures.

For example, the Committee for Melbourne has argued that there is a need for:

responsibility to be allocated for coordinated long-term planning; integrated land-use planning and infrastructure provision; land to be set aside where future infrastructure may require dedicated sites

or corridors (emphasis added) ; future infrastructure needs to be identified for perhaps a 50 year horizon,

responding to population and economic growth drivers and social aspiration”12.

8 Infrastructure Finance Working Group (2012) Infrastructure Finance and Funding Reform, pp. v-vi9 Victorian Government (2012) Melbourne, let’s talk about the future, p. 810 NSW Government (2012) NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan, p.20911 Queensland Government (2010) Draft Connecting SEQ 2031: An Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South

East Queensland, pp70-71.12 Committee for Melbourne (2010) Melbourne Beyond 5 Million: Getting Better as we Get Bigger - Volume 3, p.7


In its submission on the Draft New South Wales Freight and Ports Strategy, the Property Council of Australia stated that the Strategy should be guided by five key principles, the first of which was:

Corridor protection: Freight corridors needed for the future should be identified and protected now. This should include corridors to: support a second airport for Sydney; connect regional centres including Newcastle and Wollongong; and facilitate the movement of interstate freight to Melbourne and Brisbane.13

Infrastructure Partnerships Australia has supported corridor protection for the High Speed Rail (HSR) project, stating the Stage 2 “report must spur immediate action to place planning protection over the HSR corridors, ensuring they are not lost to other development.” 14

3.3 Commonwealth Powers and Role

The National Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 allows funds to be spent on corridor protection for railways and roads. Section 4(2) of the Act defines ‘construction’ to mean:

(c) investigation and associated engineering studies in connection with:(i) the construction, reconstruction or realignment of the railway or road; or(ii) the bringing of the railway or road to a higher standard; or(iii) the planning of alternative routes for the railway or road; and

(d) the acquisition of an interest in land for the purpose of:(i) constructing, reconstructing or realigning the railway or road; or(ii) the bringing of the railway or road to a higher standard;

It appears that, by the creation of a regulation, the Act also permits acquisition of land for inter-modal terminals.

Although past corridor protection measures were pursued largely by State and Territory governments (reflecting the historical practices and inter-governmental relations of that time), the Australian Government has demonstrated periodic willingness to protect key sites or corridors.

The most notable example was the decision by the Australian Government in the mid-1980s to purchase the site for an airport at Badgerys Creek in Sydney’s south-west. Approximately 1,700 hectares of land was acquired for the airport site itself, and a further several hundred hectares on the airport approaches was acquired as a noise buffer.

More recently, the Australian Government has funded the purchase of properties that will be required for a future upgrade/replacement of the Bridgewater Bridge on Hobart’s north-western fringe. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport stated at the time:

While construction of the new bridge is some years away, the important work of project planning and design development needs to continue. Part of that

13 Property Council of Australia (2013) Submission on the Draft NSW Freight and Ports Strategy – 15 March, p.314 Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (2013) High Speed Rail Right For Australia’s Future – But The Corridor

Must Be Protected Today – Press release, 11 April


process involves the need to preserve the future footprint of the new bridge and to give certainty to the community whose property will be affected. Consultation with affected land-owners, stakeholders, and community has meant that this footprint has been clearly identified and we can now give these people the option to move on with certainty. 15

The Australian Government is also using its existing assets to facilitate transport projects. The government has committed funds to facilitate development of an intermodal terminal on land at Moorebank in south-western Sydney that is currently used by Defence.

Like some States, the Australian Government has also disposed of land that had been acquired to protect infrastructure assets. During the early 1990s, the government sold land that it had previously acquired as a noise buffer adjoining a residential area near Melbourne Airport (Western Avenue, Tullamarine).

3.4 Corridor Optimisation through Shared Use

Given the high cost of acquiring land for new corridors, and given the constraints on government budgets, it is vital that opportunities to share corridors are actively explored wherever possible.

Such an approach was considered by the Victorian Government when planning the scope of the Outer Metropolitan Ring Transport Corridor. It has been designed to provide for future road and rail links.

This integrated approach has not been the norm. Upgrades of the Hume Highway and now the Pacific Highway have been pursued with little regard for opportunities (even in part) to re-route nineteenth century rail alignments that often restrict rail freight speeds to 30-50 km/h.

3.5 Corridor Protection Options (Acquisition and Non-Acquisition)

Land acquisition costs for projects are borne sooner or later. They cannot be avoided. Australian Government and State/Territory capital contributions to projects inevitably include some component for land acquisition. By protecting corridors and where necessary acquiring land ahead of construction, governments have the ability to:

ensure that efficiently scoped projects are developed (i.e. shorter, more direct routes with fewer tunnels);

ensure land is acquired at a lower cost, i.e. it minimises risks of real increases in the cost of land acquisition. This is a major issue as peri-urban land moves from rural to urban uses. For example, research has shown that fringe urban land prices in Melbourne grew by between 5 and 25 times the rate of the Consumer Price Index between 1994 and 200416. Work commissioned by Infrastrcutrue Australia which reviewed land price movements across the three east coast cities showed a pattern of real

15 Albanese, MP, A, (2012) Property Acquisition Funding for New Bridgewater Bridge, Media Release AA 231/2012, Issued on 7 November.

16 Buxton and Taylor (2011) ‘Urban Land Supply, Governance and the Pricing of Land’, Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 5-22.


increases in urban land prices.17 Experience in Sydney’s north west is also relevant in this regard18;

acquire other land that may be associated with a project, e.g. to facilitate coordinated development around transport nodes.

Properties acquired ahead of construction, whether for hardship reasons or in order to capture increases in land values, can be rented out prior to construction of the project. This practice has been common across jurisdictions, and minimises the holding costs for governments.

Other mechanisms may also be available which would minimise upfront costs, e.g. purchasing options on land or purchasing a share in value of the land.

In areas subject to lower development pressures, it may be sufficient simply to place a notice on land titles and land use planning instruments of a long-term intention to develop a corridor.

3.6 Corridor Buffering

Effective corridor protection requires more than the identification and protection of corridors for future infrastructure projects. Existing corridors also need protection – in this case from inappropriate development on adjoining or nearby land.

The performance of infrastructure corridors can be compromised where noise sensitive land uses are allowed on adjoining properties.

For example, at the Port of Fremantle, high density development is to be permitted next to the freight line to the port. There is a risk that future residents of the area will complain about noise associated with operation of the rail line and that, as a result, regulatory requirements may be imposed on future rail operations, affecting the productivity of the port logistics chain.

Similar issues have arisen in other jurisdictions.

Governments have recently recognised the need to protect the operation of airports from inappropriate development on nearby land. At its meeting on 18 May 2012, the Standing Committee on Transport and Infrastructure (SCOTI) endorsed the National Airport Safeguarding Framework and an associated national land use planning regime to protect airports and communities from inappropriate off-airport development.

SCOTI identified the following seven principles as fundamental to an effective National Airports Safeguarding Framework:

Principle 1. The safety, efficiency and operational integrity of airports should be protected by all governments, recognising their economic, defence and social significance.

17 Urbis (2013) Review of Historic Urban Land Value Growth East Coast Capital Cities, Consultant report for Infrastructure Australia

18 A golf course in what was then a semi-rural part of north west Sydney was acquired for approximately $1.3M in 1980 using funds from the Sydney Region Development Fund. It is understood the site was then sold to the developer of the Rouse Hill town centre in around 2002 for approximately $200M. As well as the proceeds, the large site in a single ownership facilitated ‘master planning’ and staged development of the town centre.


Principle 2. Airports, governments and local communities should share responsibility to ensure that airport planning is integrated with local and regional planning.

Principle 3. Governments at all levels should align land use planning and building requirements in the vicinity of airports.

Principle 4. Land use planning processes should balance and protect both airport/aviation operations and community safety and amenity expectations.

Principle 5. Governments will protect operational airspace around airports in the interests of both aviation and community safety.

Principle 6. Strategic and statutory planning frameworks should address aircraft noise by applying a comprehensive suite of noise measures.

Principle 7. Airports should work with governments to provide comprehensive and understandable information to local communities on their operations concerning noise impacts and airspace requirements. 19

There are obvious parallels with the operation of infrastructure corridors. It would be incongruous to take action to protect the operational integrity of Australia’s major airports but not protect the operational integrity of Australia’s major infrastructure corridors (especially its transport corridors).

4. Principles of a National Corridor Protection Strategy

The following characteristics should drive the design of a national corridor protection strategy:

Rigorous planning and criteria for defining corridors; Long-term outlook; Stability and independent governance; and Shared responsibility – to minimise the risk of governments (particularly

those of differing political persuasions) not protecting corridors (as at present) or reneging on agreements (under a new regime).

Appendix 4 sets out a range of more detailed principles to give effect to these characteristics. It is intended that these principles form the substance of a National Corridor Protection Strategy, and that the principles would, in turn, be translated into bi-lateral agreements between the Australian Government and respective State/Territory governments.

19 Standing Committee on Transport and Infrastructure (2012) Principles for National Airport Safeguarding Framework, pp.6-9, Available at http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/airport_safeguarding/nasf/index.aspx


http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/airport_safeguarding/nasf/index.aspx

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/airport_safeguarding/nasf/index.aspx

Robust, Inter-Governmental and Inter-Sectoral Planning Processes

A national corridor protection strategy needs to apply to nationally significant corridors that are handling or intended to handle large nationally, significant transport flows. In essence, these corridors would be corridors and sites associated with:

major export/import gateways; principal interstate freight networks; and substantial passenger flows between major centres in Australian capital

cities.

Most jurisdictions face some corridor protection challenges. In some cases, the corridors in question are identified in existing plans. In general, the initial corridors to be covered by a National Corridor Protection Strategy would be corridors identified in existing plans.

Subsequent corridors to be covered by the Strategy would be derived from the application of principles in existing strategic documents such as the National Ports Strategy, the draft National Land Freight Strategy, and the metropolitan strategies for capital cities.

The table attached to Appendix 4 sets out a number of initial corridors, whether in existing plans or not, which could be covered by a National Corridor Protection Strategy. The table also includes some corridors where there is an arguable case both ways whether a corridor should be covered by the Strategy.

In undertaking further planning and project development on the corridors, key considerations will include:

ensuring adequate planning and project development funds – without such funds, the quality of planning and project development is compromised (with longer term impacts). By comparison, the funds committed to project development and feasibility studies on major resource and resource-related infrastructure projects are many times greater (both in absolute numbers and proportionately) than for government developed infrastructure. For example, BHP is spending $735M on studies of Port Hedland Outer Harbour, and Woodside (and partners) announced in early 2010 that they were to spend $1.2B on feasibility studies for the Browse Gas Basin (approximately 3% of the then anticipated capital cost of the project).20

securing inter-sectoral agreements, e.g. processes that incorporate strategic planning by government ‘utilities departments’ such as energy and relevant government business enterprises. There may be potential for sharing of corridors, at least for some distance if not an entire corridor. For example, TransGrid in NSW has medium to long term plans for upgrading its networks south and north of Sydney. The perspectives of bodies such as the Australian Energy Market Operator, and regulatory agencies such as the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal and the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission will also be relevant in this area.

20 Woodside announced in early April 2013 that, following the feasibility studies, it was deferring and re-assessing investment in the Browse Basin. The estimated project cost had increased to $45 billion. This should not be taken to mean the feasibility study was wasted, or that the project itself should not proceed. Rather it should be seen as funding invested to minimise the risk that the company proceeded with a project that would have adversely affected shareholder value.


The planning processes need to provide for strategic assessment of ‘threshold’ environmental issues at an early stage, so that those threshold issues can be considered at an early stage in:

the strategic planning process itself, e.g. during the development and review of metropolitan plans or plans for regions or other geographic areas through which a corridor might pass; and

(probably more importantly) the early phases of project development, i.e. the processes for translating the strategic direction in a metropolitan or regional plan into corridors that are sufficiently precise that:

o the corridor in question can then be protected; and o the project can then proceed through later, more detailed

environmental assessment processes (i.e. when governments or others decide to proceed with the project) in the knowledge that there are no ‘show stopper’ issues about the location of the corridor itself.

This approach was used recently by the Victorian Government when planning the Outer Metropolitan Ring/ E6 Transport Corridor in Melbourne.

Robust Agreed Plans that Form the Basis for Joint Corridor Protection Initiatives

The product of the robust processes should be a series of plans that guide further action. The plans would necessarily have a range of ‘planning horizons’, from short-term (say 0-10 years), medium term (10-20 year), long-term (20-30 years), and very long-term (30-50 years+). The horizons would trigger different corridor protection actions by the parties involved. Given that infrastructure decisions necessarily represent long-term commitments, and given that cities and regions will continue to grow and change into the middle of the century, the plans need to have a truly long-term horizon (50 years) at the outer end.21

The plans would need to focus on agreed nationally significant corridors (although the measures described further below could also be used by jurisdictions to protect corridors at a lower (i.e. not nationally significant) level.

The plans and governance arrangements (see below) need to provide an ability for parties to add corridors as agreed. Agreement on corridor protection should not necessarily pre-determine prospective shares towards funding of the project(s).

Application of Agreed Corridor Protection Measures

Governments would need to agree on the most appropriate means of corridor protection. In outline, this would involve:

in areas with low development potential – perhaps nothing more than showing the corridor on a map or title or the equivalent of certificates issued under S.149 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

in areas with higher levels of development potential (and therefore risk of a corridor being ‘built out’) - reservation of lands in land use planning instruments; and

21 The National Ports Strategy adopted by the Council of Australian Governments in July 2012 states that “Planning documentation should reflect the different challenges faced by each port and demonstrate how the capacity to match forecast trade task will be safely provided, with an outlook horizon of a minimum of 15-30 years.” (emphasis added).


land use planning controls on land adjoining infrastructure corridors (e.g. permissible land uses, potential development conditions such as measures to be incorporated in new developments to minimise the impact of noise (this is akin to the processes for development around airports).

Governance Arrangements

A range of ‘umbrella principles’ would form the bulk of a National Corridor Protection Strategy. The Strategy and principles could be presented to the SCOTI for endorsement. Subsequent specific governance arrangements would need to be considered. Options include:

a multi-party inter-governmental agreement; and a series of bi-lateral agreements.

The latter seems more likely, as the circumstances for corridor protection will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The principles in Appendix 4 would be enshrined in agreements (to be known as National Corridor Protection Agreements) between the Australian Government and each participating State and Territory.22

The governance arrangements would include a Board with:

representation from both the Australian and State/Territory governments; responsibility for oversight of a dedicated corridor protection fund; responsibility for reporting to the two governments.

The Board is intended to be a tangible point to focus improved planning and corridor protection efforts by the two governments, especially where the State/Territory government is likely to be approaching the Australian Government in the future for funding assistance to develop a project.

A shared governance arrangement will minimise the risk that nationally significant corridors are not protected. If only one government is responsible for corridor protection, there is a risk that corridor protection will ‘fall off the radar’ and not be pursued. A joint arrangement reduces that risk, since implementation shortcomings by one government are likely to be highlighted by the other.

The Board would oversee arrangements for disposal of surplus land23, including whether proceeds from sales are returned to:

the corridor protection fund (see below); the governments that are party to the agreement.

The governance arrangements will need a process for treating existing corridor protected assets (e.g. land and funds) that might be injected into the fund that is overseen by the relevant bi-lateral Board.

Consideration will need to be given to the possibility of providing for dispute resolution processes (or sanctions on parties - possibly financial) where a party fails to follow through on necessary actions required to protect corridors.

22 As the Australian Capital Territory is surrounded by NSW, it is possible that any national corridor protection agreement for the ACT would need to be a tri-partite agreement with the NSW and the Australian Government.

23 This might also include the power to sell development or airspace rights, following a recommendation to the two governments and having regard to strategic plans for the area.


Corridor Protection Funds and Stable Corridor Protection Budgets

A dedicated fund is likely to be required to give independence and stability to governments’ corridor protection efforts. Such an approach was at the core of previous protection regimes in Sydney and Melbourne and the current model in Perth.

Budgets for the corridor protection fund would need to be based on a reasonable estimate of:

The overall cost of acquiring the corridor(s) in question and decisions about the timing of any acquisition (the land in a corridor does not all need to be acquired up front, though, as noted earlier, there may be advantages in making ‘advance purchases’ on a strategic basis in some cases);

A plausible assessment of prospective ‘hardship acquisitions’ or acquisitions that may arise from other requests from land owners, e.g. if State/Territory legislation provides owners with a right to demand acquisition of affected properties on request from the owner; and

The anticipated time when the infrastructure project in question (or projects in the case of multi-sector corridors) might proceed and, therefore, when corridor acquisition will need to be completed.

Consideration will need to be given to shared financial contributions to a fund. Options for the contributions may need to be considered in detail. These may include:

Commonwealth share (in respect of corridors agreed as nationally significant) – if not provided by a hypothecated revenue stream, then by a medium term inter-governmental agreement for financial contributions based on recommendations from the Board. The agreement would need to have a medium term (say not less than 10 years), and rolled over at regular (say 5 yearly) intervals;

State/Territory agreements – also covered by the medium-term inter-governmental agreement, and ideally secured against a hypothecated funding regime.

Experience from the past, and from the current Perth regime, points to the conclusion that some form of hypothecated funding regime is central to the operation of an effective corridor protection regime. Other models are possible though arguably less desirable, e.g. using a hypothecated funding regime established by a State/Territory government to meet all corridor protection costs but with ‘catch up’ contributions (e.g. reflected in the share of construction costs) from the Commonwealth at the construction stage.

Contributions might also be sourced from the revenue bases of any corporatised entities that also use the corridors on a shared basis. For example, where a corridor is intended to be used by an energy network provider, the cost of its share of the corridor protection costs might be incorporated in the asset base and prospective capital investment used to determine relevant network charges.

Given the population growth and fiscal challenges facing all governments, there may be a need for some form of financial consequence for:


governments not signing on to the principles forming the National Corridor Protection Strategy; or

governments withdrawing from the Strategy or otherwise failing to honour their undertakings under a National Corridor Protection Agreement.

In summary, there is an argument to be made that, if a State/Territory is responsible for failing to protect a corridor (and vice versa), it should bear the incremental costs of developing the project above what it would have cost if the corridor had been protected.


Appendix 1 - Examples of Projects that Have Been Developed on Previously Protected Corridors and Key Sites

Jurisdiction/ Project

Planning Corridor Protection Activity

Development of Project

NSW

M2 motorway 1951 Cumberland County Plan

1950s and 1960s Construction of the project occurred in the 1990s. At time of planning approval, there was local opposition to using the surface corridor (the opponents advocated placing the project in tunnel), as parts of the protected corridor had remained as bushland.


1950s and 1960s Construction of the project occurred over a number of stages, with the initial section occurring in the early 1970s and most of the project constructed in the mid-late 1980s and early 1990s


1950s and 1960s Construction of the project occurred over a number of stages, with the initial section occurring in the early 1990s and most of the project constructed in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Victoria

M1 Need for a corridor identified in the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme (MMPS) from 1954-1988 and in subsequent municipal planning schemes.

Corridor originally protected in 1950s

First sections developed in 1970s, Other sections in 1980s and 1990s. Parts of corridor were wide enough to allow successive widening from 4 to 6 to 8 lanes. The





EastLink motorway

Originally included in 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan (then identified as F35 Freeway)

Corridor protected in planning schemes in mid 1960s.

Project development and construction occurred between 2003 and 2008.

M80 motorway Need for a corridor was first identified in MMPS from 1954.

Corridor originally protected in 1950s. Variation to the original alignment in the Deer Park area in 1980s.

Construction occurred between late 1980’s and late 1990’s. Further widening under way, largely within current reservation.

One section had route varied prior to construction.

Geelong Ring Road

Changes in governance roles of both transport and planning agencies in regional Victoria, e.g. Geelong Regional Commission, VicRoads and council.

Melbourne Airport future development

Melbourne Airport Strategy and its associated EIS were approved by State and Commonwealth Governments in 1990.

Commonwealth approval required Victoria to undertake planning controls to ensure that the airport could develop to its ultimate capacity and to protect its flight paths.

Wide spaced, 4 runway configuration for the airport’s ultimate development. (Very long term timeframe 2050+). Included ground transport access, environmental management framework, flight path protection and identification of noise affected areas.

Included in the State Planning Policy Framework component of all planning schemes in 1997 as a document to which planning authorities must have regard.

Melbourne Airport environs area

To be completed To be completed To be completed





Avalon Airport future development

Avalon Airport Strategy was released by the Victorian Government and Department of Defence in 1993

Wide spaced, 3 runway configuration for the airport’s ultimate development. (Very long term timeframe 2050+). Included ground transport access, flight path protection and identification of noise affected areas.

Included in the State Planning Policy Framework component of all planning schemes in 1997 as a document to which planning authorities must have regard.

Sth. Australia

Various projects on corridors identified in 1969 Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Plan

Mid 1960s 1970s O-Bahn developed on Modbury Transport Corridor in mid-late 1980s. Southern Expressway constructed in mid-late 1990s.

West Australia

Southern section of the Kwinana Freeway, near Mandurah

1960s/ 1970s, e.g. Perth Regional Transport Study, e.g.:

- Perth Bunbury Route (Kwinana Freeway) – Where Should it Go? (1984)

- Peel Regional Strategy (1994)

- Inner Peel Region Structure Plan (1997)

1988 – 2004:

The land for the section of the Kwinana Freeway extension within the Peel region was reserved for Primary Regional Roads in the Peel Region Scheme in 2003.

The southern Kwinana Freeway extension was opened in September 2009.





Mandurah Rail Line

Metroplan (Metropolitan Strategy) (1990)

Inner Peel Region Structure Plan (1997)

1993 - 2003:

The land for the section of Mandurah Passenger Railway line within the Peel Region was reserved for railways in the Peel Region Scheme in 2003.

Early to mid-2000s. Construction completed in December 2007.


Appendix 2 - Examples of Projects that have Become More Expensive or Become More Difficult to Develop Due to Poor/Limited Corridor Protection



Issues

NSW

North West Rail Link

Land use plan for NW sector approved in late 1980s. Rail line proposed in 1990s.

No corridor protection activity until c.2004/05, and then only on a modest basis.

Land acquisition costs higher than necessary. Possible compromises in alignment and additional construction costs. Some of corridor purchased near height of property market.

South West Rail Link

Land use plan for SW sector approved in mid 2000s. Rail line proposed in early 1990s.

Fragmented efforts with limited legal basis in mid 2000s. Little protected until decision to proceed with project.

Legal challenges. Initial efforts were dependent on support of local councils (not always forthcoming, for understandable reasons). Much of corridor purchased near height of property market.

CBD Rail Line Initial proposals from early 1990s, then firmed up in mid 2000s.

Ineffective regime in late 1990s based on consultation arrangements in relation to development applications. Status of protection improved in mid 2000s through application of a State Environmental Planning Policy.

Project not yet developed.

Hume Highway and Main Southern Rail Line

Planning for re-alignment of Hume Highway commenced in 1980s. No equivalent planning for re-alignment of rail line.

None or relatively little, as re-alignment largely occurred through rural areas facing few development pressures.

Project planning ‘silos’ and an absence of strategic vision meant that opportunities to consider sensible, affordable re-alignments of the rail line (or at least ensure a corridor for a future re-alignment) were not taken.

Pacific Highway Planning for re-alignment of old Pacific Highway occurred since mid 1990s and during the 2000s.

None or relatively little, as re-alignment largely occurred through rural areas facing relatively few development pressures.

Project planning ‘silos’ and an absence of strategic vision meant that opportunities to consider sensible, affordable re-alignments of the rail line (or at least ensure a corridor for a future re-alignment) have not been taken.


Victoria

East West Link Broad corridor originally identified in the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan

No reservation. Tunnels required over some sections. Demolition of industrial properties likely over some sections. Opportunities for surface corridor exist in areas where there is potential brownfields redevelopment.

North East Link Corridor originally identified in the 1954 MMPS and confirmed in the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan

Reservation revoked in 1970’s over part of the route. Part of remainder retained as reservation for arterial widening

Environmental and social issues indicate that a tunnel is expected to be required for part of the route.

South Australia

Various projects on corridors identified in 1969 Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Plan

Mid 1960s 1970s Corridors sold off at various points, e.g. in early 1980s.


Appendix 3 - Examples of Potential Future Projects Needing Secure Long Term Corridor Protection

Jurisdiction/ Project Planning Corridor Protection Activity

Issues

NSW

Western Sydney Freight Line and Intermodal Terminal

Proposals for a terminal and corridor first identified in mid 2000s.

Nil to date Significant development pressures throughout Western Sydney are closing out route options and options for a terminal site (c.300ha+).

Sydney orbital corridor First identified as a long term option in Dec 2010 Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney.

Nil to date This would be the analogue of the Outer Metropolitan Ring in Melbourne. Significant development pressures throughout Western Sydney are likely to be closing out route options.

High speed rail line Stage 1 study of route options completed in July 2011. Stage 2 (more detailed) study due for completion in January 2013.

Nil to date Stage 1 report suggests corridor protection cost is of the order of $5-6B.

Inland rail line Studies of corridor options undertaken in mid-late 2000s.

Nil to date Development pressures likely to be limited to near major town and cities.

Second Sydney Airport Since 1970s Nil to date on options not ruled out by governments.

Previous proposed airport site at Badgerys Creek (c.1,700 ha.) has been protected/ acquired by the Commonwealth.



Issues

Victoria

Outer Metropolitan Ring – road and rail corridor

Significant planning exercise undertaken in mid-late 2000s.

Corridor reserved in 2010. First major new road corridor reserved in Melbourne since 1960s.

Large cost of corridor protection. Potential for joint Commonwealth/ State involvement due to national significance of this corridor designed to accommodate road, high speed passenger rail and heavy freight rail.

North East Link Surface corridor abandoned in 1970s. Land reserved for arterial widening over part of length of one corridor. Land for freeway over short length of alternative corridor..

Nil to date (except arterial widening).

EES process for an alternative corridor in early 1980s resulted in decision not to proceed with that corridor

Overall corridor location still to be determined.

Significant environmental and social issues with any alignment.

Melbourne Metro Need for corridor identified in East West Link Needs Assessment study in 2008

Planning process underway, but no formal protection as yet

Issues with threading a tunnel through a built up Central Business District environment with major buildings and services.

IA priority pipeline project.

Airport link to Melbourne Airport

Previous planning commenced in the late 1980s with its recognition of a proposed alignment from Broadmeadows in the Melbourne Airport Strategy 1990, planning schemes amendment process in 1998-2001 and continuing until present.

Public Acquisition Overlay put in place c. 2001 for a line, via Sunshine, diverting from Albion-Jacana line at Airport Drive.

Alignment recognised in Melbourne Airport Master Plans approved from 2003 under the Airports Act 1996 (Cwlth)

Noted as a proposed project in Victoria’s 2012 IA submission.

A range of corridor options exist.



Issues

Avalon Airport Rail Link To be completed To be completed

To be completed

Western Intermodal Freight Terminal

Following a strategic planning process, a preferred location has been identified

Planning process underway but no formal protection as yet

A large greenfields site exists adjacent to proposed future freeway and near to Regional Rail Link. However, cost of protection of site remains an issue.

Port of Hastings – future development port facilities and transport corridors

To be completed To be completed

To be completed

Queensland

Cross River Rail 2007 – 2011 Some properties purchased.

New government has said it will “defer Cross River Rail acquisitions until a real plan to solve the inner city rail capacity crisis is developed.”

Southern Freight Rail Corridor

Early to mid-2000s. Corridor gazetted in late 2010.

Some hardship acquisition cases received.

Rail freight corridors in regional Queensland

Late 2000s Understood to be nil to date.

Issue is likely to be extent to which powers of the state are used to acquire land for privately developed projects (albeit projects that offer significant economic potential).

Heavy rail on Sunshine Coast (CAMCOS)

Early 2000s Limited to date. Uncertainty re availability of funding. Development proposals near southern part of corridor.

Western Australia



Issues

Road and rail corridor to Fremantle outer harbour

1990s Corridor protected in Perth Metropolitan Regional Scheme.

Links can proceed when business case requires, as corridor has been protected.

Causeway East/Great Eastern Highway Interchange

TBC Parts of corridor protected in Perth Metropolitan Regional Scheme.

As transport demand (car, cyclists, bus and possible future light rail) is anticipated to grow over the next 20+ years, a review of the existing corridor requirements for this area on the eastern edge of the CBD is under way.

Tasmania

Redevelopment of Bridgewater Bridge

To be completed. Commonwealth funding provided in 2012/2013 to allow purchase on hardship grounds.

To be completed.


Appendix 4 – Draft Principles to be Incorporated in National Corridor Protection Agreements

The principles to be enshrined in bi-lateral agreements (to be known as National Corridor Protection Agreements) between the Australian Government and each State/Territory government are as follows:

Determination of Corridors1. Corridor and sites to be covered by a National Corridor Protection Agreement

shall be:a. those links listed under the column ‘Probably Apply’ in the attachment to

these principles;b. Such other corridors and sites agreed by the parties to a National Corridor

Protection Agreement (on the advice of the Board established under principle 6 below) which:i. are identified in 50 year port plans prepared under the National Ports

Strategy;ii. are identified in the National Land Freight Strategy;iii. service major commercial and residential centres in Australian capital

cities, particularly where there is a reasonable possibility that: changes in type or density of land use will compromise the cost-

effective development and operation of a corridor; increasing urban land values will add to the cost of developing an

infrastructure corridor.

Corridor Definition2. For those corridors and sites in 1(a) above:

a. the Australian Government and relevant State/Territory government agree to commit funding in their respective 2015/16 budgets for further planning and project development of the corridors;

b. The governments agree that by June 2017 they will complete:i. the corridor development studies covered by 2(a) above (including

examination of the potential for multi-modal and cross infrastructure sector sharing of corridors);

ii. strategic environmental assessments under the Environmental Planning and Biodiversity Conservation Act and relevant state/territory legislation sufficient to confirm a corridor.

3. For those corridors and sites in 1(b) above, the Australian Government and relevant State/Territory government agree to:a. make such joint funding commitments as are required to undertake

planning and project development investigations that are sufficient to identify corridors to which specific corridor protection regimes would then apply and to complete those investigations within a period recommended by the Board;

b. complete strategic environmental assessments under the Environmental Planning and Biodiversity Conservation Act and relevant state/territory legislation sufficient to confirm a corridor within a period recommended by the Board.


Types of Corridor Protection4. The results of the corridor or site development studies and environmental

assessments in principles 2 and 3 above will be used by the Board (to be established under principle 6 below) to recommend specific protection measures for the relevant corridor in line with the following criteria:a. where there is a low probability of development pressures and/or in

increases in land values within the next 30 years, advice of the existence of the corridor shall be provided to:i. existing property owners affected by the corridor and on land in the

vicinity of the corridor;ii. potential purchasers of property, i.e. when purchasers are making pre-

purchase conveyancing enquiries in relation to land on or in the vicinity of the corridor.

b. medium-high probability of development pressures and/or increases in land values within the next 30 years:i. corridor protection in land use planning instruments and associated

funding to meet acquisition requirements in a rolling plan to be approved by the Board;

ii. advice to existing landowners and prospective purchasers in line with 4(a) above;

iii. establishment of buffer zones in the vicinity of the corridor or site to which the provisions in principle 5 below shall apply.

5. Buffer zones shall be created in land use planning instruments for land in the vicinity of existing corridors or sites so that:a. preferably, noise sensitive uses are not developed in those zones;b. if noise sensitive uses are to be developed in the zones:

i. developers of land in the zones shall incorporate noise attenuation and other measures into the design of the development to minimise the risk that complaints from the uses of those developments will create pressure to limit or constrain operation of the corridor or site;

ii. a notice shall be placed on the title of the relevant properties within the zone and in pre-purchase conveyancing notices that the property is within the vicinity of an infrastructure corridor or site covered by a National Corridor Protection Agreement. The notice would identify the economic significance and operational characteristics of those corridors (e.g. 24/7 operation, high volume).

Joint Corridor Protection Board6. The Australian Government and each State/Territory government shall establish

a Board to oversee implementation of the National Corridor Protection Agreement within the relevant State/Territory. The Board shall comprise:a. an independent chair agreed by the two governments;b. three representatives of the Australian Government - one from the

transport/infrastructure portfolio, one from the Treasury, and one from the portfolio with responsibility for environment and/or urban development;

c. three representatives of the relevant State/Territory government - one from the transport/infrastructure portfolio, one from the Treasury, and one from the portfolio responsible for land-use planning.

7. The Board shall have the following broad roles:a. agree future corridors to be recommended to governments to be

considered for protection in accordance with the National Corridor Protection Agreement;


b. for corridors that are being protected or are to be protected: development and monitoring of a corridor protection budget for the jurisdiction, including corridor by corridor estimates of the following matters:i. an amount for further studies to define the corridor(s);ii. estimates of likely acquisition demands over the coming 5 years under

hardship arrangements;iii. estimates of advance purchases of land required for a corridor, i.e.

where the Board agrees it is appropriate to do so;iv. estimates of rental proceeds from properties already acquired;v. estimates of the proceeds from prospective sales of land previously

acquired for corridor protection purposes, e.g. where the infrastructure project is to be or has been developed and surplus land is available for sale;

c. make recommendations to the two governments on the shares (quantum and source) they are to contribute over a rolling 10 years towards that budget;

d. recommend buffer zones to be incorporated in land use planning instruments and environmental controls;

e. such other roles as are agreed by the two governments.8. The Board shall report to both governments on:

a. the identification and protection of corridors;b. management of funds used in administering the National Corridor

Protection Agreement.

Contributions to a Joint Corridor Protection Fund 9. The Australian Government and each State/Territory government shall establish

a joint fund to be managed by the Board to give effect to the National Corridor Protection Agreement.

10. Contributions to the fund shall be on a 50/50 basis, unless otherwise agreed by the two governments.

11. Each State/Territory government agrees to introduce a hypothecated charge over land in region(s) serviced by the corridors for their share of the protection budgets recommended by the Board in their jurisdiction. Proceeds from the charge shall be directed to the Board for use in administering the National Corridor Protection Agreement.

12. The hypothecated charge shall commence operation from the 2016/17 financial year.

13. The Australian Government agrees to commit funds in a rolling ten-year budget sufficient to meet its share of the corridor protection budgets recommended by the various Boards. The funds shall be directed to the Boards for use in administering the relevant National Corridor Protection Agreement.

14. The rolling budget shall commence from the 2016/17 financial year.

Implications of Decisions by the Parties for the Cost of Projects within Corridors15. Other than the share of the cost of corridor protection itself, the share of funding

to be contributed by each government towards the cost of constructing and operating a project within a corridor shall be as agreed by the two governments. In other words, agreement on a share of funding for corridor protection shall not pre-determine the respective shares of subsequent costs to be borne by the two governments.


16. That said, the respective share of corridor protection costs borne by the Australian Government and the relevant State/Territory government incurred prior to a decision to proceed with construction of an infrastructure project in a corridor shall be a consideration for both governments when determining the respective shares of funding to be contributed to the construction of the project.

17. Failure by a jurisdiction to agree to the National Corridor Protection Strategy or, subsequently, to implement their responsibilities under a National Corridor Protection Agreement will be considered a material event. The implications of doing so for the cost of developing a project in an infrastructure corridor will be a material consideration for Australian Government funding for a future project. In other words, Australian Government funding would only be provided to the level which would otherwise have applied had the corridor protection arrangements been in place. Equally, failure by the Australian Government to implement its agreed corridor protection measures would trigger an obligation to provide a commensurately higher contribution towards the cost of developing any project within the corridor.


Attachment to Principles

Corridors to Which a National Corridor Protection Strategy Could Apply

State/City Probably Apply May Apply

Queensland/ Brisbane

Brisbane Underground Bus and Train

Toowoomba to Port of Brisbane and Toowoomba bypass

Southern Freight Rail Corridor (Bromelton to Ebenezer)

Corridor around western Brisbane - Beaudesert to Gympie (including Strathpine to Everton Park to Indooroopilly

High speed rail

NSW/ Sydney M9 around western Sydney Western Sydney Freight Rail

Corridor West Connex (M4 principally) Sydney – Newcastle Kingsford Smith to CBD rail South West Rail Link extension Newcastle – Newcastle Airport High speed rail

Parramatta-Bankstown-Hurstville

ACT/ Canberra High speed rail Portion of road corridor to NSW south coast

Barton Highway

Victoria/ Melbourne

Melbourne Metro Outer Metropolitan Transport

Corridor (including Western Interstate Freight Terminal)

Land transport to Hastings Bay West Tullamarine Airport High speed rail

Tasmania/ Hobart Launceston to Burnie

South Australia/ Adelaide

Northern Connector Adelaide rail by-pass

Northern Territory/ Darwin

Access to Port of Darwin

Western Australia/ Perth

Kwinana Freeway Perth Darwin national highway Rail corridor to Perth airport

Cross metropolitan public transport corridor (Directions 2031 suggests three possible corridors – Fremantle to Cannington and Cannington to Stirling via UWA and Cannington to Stirling via Morley)


€¦ · web viewoffice of the infrastructure coordinator. development of a . national corridor...

Documents