![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/211206034156-1dc1a0497456ea209f496ca6bd08e055/v1/ceadc3bfdc73c0755e5c3044f3ebb4d2.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
36 minute read
Scott Charlton | Chief Executive Officer, Transurban
Scott Charlton
Chief Executive Officer, Transurban
Key points:
• Transurban’s landmark study shows that motorists will accept different pricing models if they understand it. • The study showed that a usage-based charging model could generate sustainable funding to meet future transport needs. • While stakeholder support is important, the community will need to understand the problem and the spectrum of solutions, to advance.
I am excited to present the first findings from the study on road usage that Transurban has been conducting over the past 18 months.
At Infrastructure Partnerships Australia’s 2015 Annual Infrastructure Oration, I announced that Transurban would undertake the first study in Australia to examine how drivers respond to userpays charging as an alternative to the current unfair system of opaque fees and taxes.
As an industry, we have been talking about this for at least a decade, so it has been enlightening to hear from actual drivers.
Our participants are everyday Australians who have given up their valuable time to be part of this study. While they were offered money to participate in the study, most agreed to participate because they saw it as a way to contribute to finding better transport solutions for their communities. I want to thank them all for their contribution. They are just real Australians wanting to make a contribution.
Frank (participant): We are a community that’s used to paying for things, so yeah, this is something else that we have to pay for. It’s going to take a brave government to introduce it, but it will happen. Traffic is getting worse and worse, so if people know that their kilometre charge or their usage charge is a certain amount, then they might decide not to do this, or this, or this, find another means, or just not to do it.
Rob (participant): I think a user-pays system, depending on the rate at which it was struck, and that’s always going to be debatable by a lot of people… but that approach is going to modify people’s driving.
Linda (participant): At the end of the day, we all have to pay for the roads and their need to be maintained, so money has to come from somewhere. It can’t just be from one source, so they have to look at alternatives.
Before I move on to the actual findings, I want to make clear what motivated Transurban to undertake the study.
Australia faces the demands of a growing, ageing and highly urbanised population. At the same time, our major road funding source, fuel excise, is being diminished by the uptake of more fuel-efficient, and electric vehicles.
And as we all know, congestion is an issue in our cities, particularly when you look at the population growth. It affects productivity but, more importantly, it affects our quality of life.
Our motorways and Transurban form part of the broader road networks of our cities. Congestion in the
Scott Charlton
network affects the efficiency of our roads, which in turn impacts our customers and our value-for-money proposition. If our roads are not efficient, it impacts the community more broadly, and also impacts our returns to shareholders.
If our cities are going to continue to be the most liveable in the world, then we will need a sustainable funding source that keeps pace with our transport demand, and ensures that our roads are safe, efficient and reliable.
At the same time, we are on the brink of a revolution in transport technology that will redefine mobility as we know it, and will test our transport infrastructure like never before.
So, we are motivated to solve funding and congestion challenges because efficient networks benefit Transurban, and we believe this aligns with the needs of our customers and our cities that also want efficient networks.
In undertaking this study, we were not searching for a particular policy outcome. We believed it was time to test user-pays theories with actual people, as opposed to crunching numbers in a spreadsheet and talking about our community as outsiders to this conversation.
In doing so, the study would give us what no amount of theory could – a genuine picture of Australians’ views and behaviours when it comes to user-pays road charging, as well as tangible data that will help progress options for a sustainable and fair road funding model.
And lastly, we are a collection of technology, engineering and infrastructure geeks and we – myself included – just love this stuff.
Since last October, 1,635 drivers have travelled more than 12 million kilometres around Melbourne with GPS devices in their cars to put these alternative charging options to the test.
We have recorded 1.2 million trips and a billion data points, and have completed 4,500 surveys with our study participants.
We have also spoken to another 2,200 Australians across the country to find out what they know and think about transport infrastructure funding and their appetite for reform.
We set up the study in two stages to test two separate objectives.
The first stage was designed to measure the participants’ responses to user-pays charging options that would provide a more transparent, sustainable and fairer funding source to replace the current system. So, the first stage looked at replacing the current funding system.
In the second stage – which we are still finalising [Editor’s note: the second stage of the study was released in October 2016] – we are testing how participants respond to varied price signals that are designed to manage demand for roads in highly congested geographies at certain times.
For the purposes of this study, our road-usage charges were designed to reflect replacement of Australia’s current road-related expenditure.
Now lower or higher charges could be applied to amplify particular driving behaviours, help to manage demand across the road network, or to address the needs of specific community groups. A user-pays system could offer that flexibility.
With these two models, it’s important that we learn from discussing with our participants that if you start mixing the funding model with the congestion model, it gets much, much harder for the community to understand. It’s very clear that they understand the current system when they’re educated, or when they have more information or awareness that the system is broken, unfair and needs to change.
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/211206034156-1dc1a0497456ea209f496ca6bd08e055/v1/d0fccce8f2257a38ff933b4e65a34a81.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
Melbourne
Scott Charlton
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/211206034156-1dc1a0497456ea209f496ca6bd08e055/v1/7b45de9f37232d881d1aae83a3d3e464.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
If you try to bring congestion and funding in at the same time, it becomes a difficult conversation. But separately, they can certainly be discussed.
Last month marked the end of stage one, and these are the findings I’ll summarise now.
Our initial findings are something that I’m sure everyone in this room will be happy to hear.
After seeing how our participants behaved, and listening to what they have to say, a road-usage system based on user pays is an achievable goal.
Put simply, we believe that a user-pays roadcharging model could work in Australia.
Our study showed that participants were open to trying a new, fairer and more transparent way of paying for their road use.
A system based on user pays did not dramatically change the way that participants used their car, nor did it appear to impede their everyday activities.
On a practical level, the study shows that moving to a usage-based charging model would generate a sustainable funding source to meet our future transport demands.
Our participants did recognise that changing the way Australians pay for their road usage would be a complex task, but they were open to talking about it, particularly when they understood what was at stake.
Angela (participant): I do actually think that Australia needs to change the way we use our roads, especially more around bigger cities like Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane.
Louise (participant): Oh, there [are many] more people on the road. Much more congestion and waiting. Especially in the peak time – you shouldn’t even leave your home.
Tohu (participant): Yeah, I work right in the middle of town and it’s just havoc. Sometimes it can take me two hours to get home. If I catch the train or public transport, [it takes] an hour. It’s pretty draining.
The study also shows that the two factors that many feared would hold up change – privacy and technology – are no longer substantial barriers. Most participants were comfortable with user-pays devices being installed in their cars. Of course, privacy and technology are both critical issues, but we believe they are manageable.
Our participants tested three user-pays charging options: a charge per trip, a charge per kilometre and a flat rate, similar to a capped plan for mobile phone.
We didn’t see significant change in the way that participants used their vehicles under those charging options at an aggregate level, suggesting that the road-usage charging model did not impede their regular driving behaviours and activities.
Looking deeper, however, we saw several major themes that provide insight into what impacts driver behaviours, and should therefore be considered in the design of a system based on road usage.
This will be important for policymakers in the future as they consider ways in which usage charges can address other objectives, including equity and congestion.
Transparency and awareness were the first of three prominent themes. Feedback from our participants showed that a system with a direct and transparent link to their actual road usage made them more aware of how they used the roads.
Anecdotally, this appeared to be more evident among participants on the per-kilometre or per-trip plans rather than the set-and-forget style of flat rate.
In the three months that they were testing the charging options, many participants indicated ways that they could change their road usage.
Scott Charlton
Wayne (participant): In the past, I would have jumped in the car to go and buy the papers. Well, now I think, that’s going to be $2; I’ll walk down – it’s much healthier.
Linda (participant): So, depending on what I needed to do … if I needed to go to the bank, the supermarket and the newsagents, I’d say, ‘well, where’s the nearest location to do all three at once’, rather than have to stop three times. So, in that sense, it made me more aware of my driving habits to try and plan my journey a little bit better. But having said that, I still need to use my car.
Bob (participant): Yeah, I mean, you can alter your driving habits and you think about what you do. You certainly can change your pattern of what you do or how you do it. Maybe you’ll do three things in one trip rather than do three separate trips.
Zac (participant): Well, I would drive less. I know that every time you start the car, that means a trip and it’s going to cost you $1, so I’d drive less if I could. I mean, I wouldn’t take public transport because I hate public transport. If it’s a walkable distance, I’d walk it; otherwise, if I wanted to get some food or something… [if] I wanted to drive down for food, I might raid the pantry and find something to eat in there instead.
David (participant): I’m the sort of person who if you’ve got to go out, you hop in the car and do it. I haven’t got the calculator out at this stage, [to work] out whether I can or can’t go.
Each of our participants had a travel account and the potential to receive up to $80 a month while they were testing the charging options.
For many, the incentive to change would be greater if they were actually having to pay for their road use rather than being presented with potential incentive dollars in their travel account.
This is classically known as loss aversion, and the theory is that people are twice as likely to change their behaviour if they are faced with a loss, rather than the incentive of a gain.
Cameron (participant): Yeah, it’s worked out in my favour. If anything – if I may add – it sort of has made me think... if I was paying, physically paying $1 per trip, it does make you think about your vehicle usage. It does stop you from being a little bit complacent or lazy.
Trish (participant): It’s hardly a princely sum of money, sorry. But the thing is, it’s just more about the exercise and how you’re thinking about using your car as opposed to the money.
Louise (participant): Yes, of course it has made me think. Because if I had to pay all of that money… I mean, yes, it would make me think again and again.
Rob (participant): Well, since then, the piggy bank’s growing. There’s $112-odd in there. It’s interesting, because the wife and I talked about this, and we’re giving this to a charity that we’re supporting at the moment, so they’re going to get a benefit out of it, which I think is terrific. That’s been one of the modifying factors for me in this whole exercise; [it] was really to become more conscious – not to maximise dollars but to really understand if we need to drive that much, and there is a bonus in it that somebody’s going to get a benefit out of, which will be really good.
Choice was another theme to emerge.
We gave participants a choice in their charging options, recognising that one size would not fit all.
The charge-per-kilometre distance plan, which was probably the most straightforward and transparent plan, was also the most popular.
The flat-capped rate was the second most preferred plan, and feedback showed it appealed to people who wanted predictability in their monthly budgets.
The charge-per-trip plan was the least preferred option, but it could appeal to people who have to travel longer distances per trip.
People are often locked into their travel patterns by the lack of alternatives available. They need genuine choice, which means that public transport alternatives are critical. As we all know, the availability of public transport differs considerably across geographies, so this will form an integral part of any solution design.
Our participants come from all parts of greater Melbourne. Zone 1 represents the inner-city suburbs with access to all modes of public transport. Zone 2 comprises middle and outer suburbs with access to some modes of transport, and Zone 3 represents outer regions with partial access.
Choice also extends to other factors, such as flexible working hours and opening hours of services – these all played a part in participants’ response. All of these considerations point to the importance of a holistic approach to future design.
Scott Charlton
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/211206034156-1dc1a0497456ea209f496ca6bd08e055/v1/3da788bfc49cec36b84c09077d9c7606.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
Simon (participant): If it was ‘pay every time you start your car and drive’, then I’d be in a bit of trouble, because I don’t have a lot of options.
Angela (participant): I’m lucky – I’ve got lots of trains, trams and buses. But outside of those areas, it does get tough.
David (participant): I think that if I made a conscious decision about it... it wouldn’t make any difference because I drive for a purpose, to achieve something in my working life. I’ll just keep doing the same thing, the same way, make the same decisions for the same reasons. In that sense, my – I guess you would call it ‘jargon’, I suppose – marginal propensity to drive is inflexible. I’m going to do it because that’s how I need to get to my customers. So, I would still look for the cheapest way. If it was going to be charged that way, I’d ultimately actually figure it out.
Meg (participant): It’s funny, because I have a bus stop that’s just a bit down the road, and I could jump on the bus and catch that to the station. Sometimes I think ‘Well, that could help’. But then it’s coming home. It’s less frequent, and you know when you’re going to leave to go to work. You don’t quite know when you’re going to get home. So, sitting around and then having to go off and walk the dog, and make the kids’ dinner, and whatever. It’s more convenient to park at the station and drive that five-minute drive.
Scott Charlton
And finally, the last major theme was fairness.
Many of our participants said that any change would need to have benefits that flowed across the whole community and transport network.
They talked about the need for the funding raised to be put towards transport projects and maintenance specifically. And here again, the difference between road and public transport wasn’t a big difference; they all saw it as they need transport and transport alternatives, and as long as it was towards transport, they thought that was very fair.
They spoke about the need to protect the most vulnerable in our community and those who have to drive long distances, particularly people living in regional areas or the fringes of cities.
But they could see why paying for what you actually use is fairer than a system that effectively taxes motorists with older vehicles more than those with newer, more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Cameron (participant): Maybe the user-pays system might be a little bit fairer so that people who don’t use their vehicles as often don’t pay – they’re not paying for those that use their vehicles a lot more.
Bob (participant): Well, if we had a user-pays system, they’d really need to reduce – or eliminate – the taxes they’ve got now on the petrol price, and bring petrol down so that they do raise their money out of user-pays fees.
Meg (participant): I have a strong view that if something like this came to fruition, those other taxes need to be withdrawn.
Lenore (participant): Well, if we introduced a user-pays system, it would have to be carefully graduated I would say, for maybe – for someone according to where they live, and how far they have to travel each week.
The specifics of our findings so far are available in the initial report, which we have released.
Our full report, which will include more detailed statistical analysis, will be released next month [Editor’s note: the full report was released in October 2016]. It will also include the results from the second stage, where we have tested a charge for peak-hour travel and a charge for entering Melbourne’s innercity zone.
While the results are still being analysed, some of our participants have recently completed this phase of the study, and here is what they have to say about driving under the congestion options:
Frank (participant): Congestion is the biggest thing we are facing in the city. Traffic congestion. If we produced a three or four per cent reduction, particularly in peak hour, it would have a fairly dramatic impact on how people manage to get to work.
Rob (participant): It does make you think, and you ask yourself, ‘Well, do I really need to travel between this hour and that hour?’ By travelling at certain times, if you don’t need to, you are just adding to the congestion.
Trish (participant): It certainly made you think a bit more if you were going to go into that area. There was definitely an impact on my behaviour, or a potential for impact on my behaviour if I needed to go into that area.
Linda (participant): Knowing that it was going to cost me double to travel home in the morning after I dropped my child off at school, if I just socialised for 10 minutes, which doesn’t cost anything, I could then travel home in the off peak, so therefore I’m saving half the cost. (Participant): $8 per day over a week, that’s $40 a week, $160 a month – that’s a lot of money on top of everything else you’ve got to buy and pay for. It would help with people and encourage people to use public transport and not use their vehicle, if they can avoid it, for non-essential travel.
Preliminary findings on the cordon-charging option suggest that participants tend to reduce their travel into the cordon area during chargeable periods, compared with the control group; however, we still have some work to do to confidently establish how much of the change that we are observing can be attributed to the cordon charge.
We also look forward to hearing more feedback from our participants about their experiences in the congestion phase.
As we all know, peak-hour traffic congestion not only adds time to a trip, but it also affects the predictability of the journey time. Outside peak period, road networks are commonly under-utilised.
Peak spreading doesn’t require a big change in travel patterns – just shifting a small percentage would make a considerable difference to the overall demand profile.
This is a subtle but important difference between the distinctive policy objectives of introducing a sustainable funding system versus managing peak demand, which is stage two of the study.
Scott Charlton
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/211206034156-1dc1a0497456ea209f496ca6bd08e055/v1/1abdc017eeed0cf029e30aa3003c648f.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
Sydney Cahill Expressway
Our participants have provided some encouraging signs that with the appropriate pricing levels, travel alternatives, and flexibility in workplace and services, we may find solutions to manage congestion today and prepare our networks for the future.
We have called our report ‘Changed Conditions Ahead’ because that’s exactly what we are facing.
Not only do we have the challenges of finding a sustainable and fair funding solution to support our ongoing population growth and manage congestion on our transport networks, but we are also on the verge of the biggest revolution in the transportation sector since cars replaced horses – and we are still saddled with a funding system from that era.
Fuel excise currently contributes 57 per cent of our total road-related revenue, and by some estimates, this figure could be halved by 2050.
The current system is unsustainable.
If we stick with these revenue sources (fuel excise and revenue from registration, licence fees and stamp duty), by 2050 we will be looking at a funding gap of up to $35 billion per year between what we are raising, and what we are likely to need in order to fund infrastructure to meet demand.
We see a different story if we look at a funding model based on a user-pays systems that grows with the number of kilometres being driven.
This is a sobering picture, and will only become more challenging as cars become more fuel efficient,
and as we see the arrival and mass adoption of affordable electric vehicles, which are about 70 per cent cheaper to run than petrol cars.
Major car manufacturers and tech companies including Tesla, Nissan, Google, Apple, BMW and Ford are investing billions of dollars in electric vehicles, and dozens of models are due out by 2020.
So, with electric vehicles contributing very little to nothing in the way of fuel-excise revenue for road funding, and offering no incentive to cut down driving – in fact, electric vehicles make it cheaper to do more kilometres – how will we fund the infrastructure we need? Registration and stamp duty? Not unless we expect drivers to be paying thousands of dollars a year, which increases unfairness and entrenches a set-and-forget mentality that drives even more inefficient behaviours.
Along with electric cars, transport technologies are advancing at a rate that even we, in the industry, struggle to keep up with.
Autonomous cars, ride-share and car-share schemes, and integrated transport service offerings will give us greater access to transport than ever before, and will create some great opportunities.
And as Telstra’s chief scientist, Hugh Bradlow, recently pointed out, if we continue to build and operate roads the way that we do now, we are likely to need about two and a half times more road capacity in 2050 than we have today in order to cater for population growth.
We have the opportunity now to design and implement the kind of road-charging mechanisms and systems that will support our changing demographics, and to take advantage of the opportunities that technology offers.
Jurisdictions across the world have been working on ways to address declining fuel tax revenue for some time. Now, technology has given us the chance to consider the entire transport landscape.
In Tennessee, for example, a new law will attach a mileage-based tax to autonomous vehicles. It is planning now for the transition that is coming.
We believe that a gradual implementation of reform as new technologies are introduced would
Scott Charlton
To strengthen communities through transport
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/211206034156-1dc1a0497456ea209f496ca6bd08e055/v1/e8851a6f6d476470c4e5e82dc93808a5.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
As Australia’s leading toll road owner and operator, our vision is ‘to strengthen communities through transport’. That’s because we recognise that what we do—and how we do it—has a real impact on the daily lives and productivity of our cities and communities.
transurban.com
Scott Charlton
be the easiest way for the public to accept change, rather than implementing an entirely new system in one go.
If we can have a system in transition and we start in the early 2020s as these efficient vehicles come on line, then we will be able to move through as the fleets transition. If we wait until 2030 or beyond, there’ll be a large part of the market that already has these vehicles, and it will then become a regressive tax for people who own this capital investment. It will be a much harder system to implement.
Minister for Urban Infrastructure the Hon Paul Fletcher MP recently acknowledged the significant challenges that Australia faces with its current road funding system, and warned that the issue must be addressed if we are to meet our future transportation needs.
I couldn’t agree more. We believe that road-user charging is inevitable – in some form or other.
After nearly 18 months working with the Australian community, we have a far greater understanding about what would be required to implement a new system.
As an industry, we have all done some great work over the past few years, and have seen headlines change from inflammatory reactions over the mere mention of ‘user pays’ to an understanding of the complexities and the need for change.
But the occasional news article or conference is not enough to properly inform the community.
We have learnt from our study that the conversation will require an awareness campaign so that drivers understand how they pay for roads now.
One place to start may be at the petrol pump, and ensuring that drivers can see where their petrol dollar is going, just like a supermarket docket shows the GST. It was something that Australian Automobile Association Chief Executive Michael Bradley suggested recently. We agree that more transparency is needed to create a greater level of understanding.
On our part, we are looking for ways to inform our customers – and that’s about three million Australians – about the current situation and its inherent challenges.
Secondly, reform of this magnitude would need a national framework that balances national and state objectives.
Thirdly, as our study participants have highlighted, there are a number of areas that will require further investigation to ensure fairness and equity, which reinforces Minister Fletcher’s comments that we need to understand the impacts of change on all Australians.
And finally, we have a window of opportunity now with new technology advances to lay the foundations for the kind of system that will support our new transport landscape.
We have started the process by proving up the GPS technology; however, scaling up to a broader system will be a challenge that industry and government will need to collaborate together to solve.
We believe that we have provided insights into what should be considered in the design of any new usage system through this study.
Ultimately, governments will determine how we move forward, but they will only be able to do so effectively with the support of industry in this room and, more importantly, our communities.
Frank (participant): We live in a changing world. This is a window to the future of the way we drive. The way we drive, really, has to be addressed, because our roads are getting busier and busier. Our infrastructure is not keeping up with it.
Scott Charlton joined Transurban Group as Chief Executive Officer in 2012. Mr Charlton has more than 25 years’ experience in developing, funding, constructing and operating infrastructure assets, working with some of the sector’s leading corporations, including Lendlease, where he was Chief Operating Officer for global operations (2010 to 2012).
Prior to this, he was Chief Financial Officer at Leighton Holdings and a Managing Director of Deutsche Bank. Mr Charlton is an engineer by training. He is Deputy Chairman of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, a board member of Roads Australia, and a member of Monash Industry Council of Advisers and the Business Council of Australia.
AVIONICS: ILLUMINATING AVIATION INDUSTRY WITH INNOVATION AND SAFETY FOCUS
An outstanding provider of runway lighting systems is delivering on major projects.
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/211206034156-1dc1a0497456ea209f496ca6bd08e055/v1/0bafc764198f72bf47ac49b3eff89567.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
Australia’s leading provider of airport runway and ground lighting systems, Avionics, is helping airports and defence bases to upgrade their runways, deliver timecritical lighting installation and maintenance projects, and ensure world-class safety.
Avionics specialises in the design, supply, installation, maintenance and commissioning of airfield ground lighting systems in the Asia-Pacific region. It is the largest provider of airport lighting installations in Australia, and has worked at every major airport.
Avionics has completed more than 65 airport lighting projects since it began operating in 2007. Clients include Sydney Airport, Melbourne Airport, Adelaide Airport, Brisbane Airport, Darwin International Airport and the Australian Government Department of Defence.
Avionics also works with several of Australia’s largest engineering and construction companies on airport lighting systems.
‘Avionics brings a tremendous amount of experience to airfield lighting systems,’ says Avionics Founder and Managing Director Nick Brumley. ‘We know what airports need with lighting and have built a deep level of trust in the industry over many years.’
Brumley says Avionics’ specialisation in airport lighting is critical. ‘International airports around Australia rely on Avionics to deliver high-quality installations on time and achieve “right first time” outcomes using innovative installation techniques.’
Avionics works on complex lighting projects that have to fit between busy airport schedules. At Brisbane Airport, 50 Avionics staff members are working six days a week, in 4–5 hour windows, to upgrade its existing airfield lighting infrastructure. Fulton Hogan is heading the project.
Avionics is also working with Melbourne Airport to replace its existing high-intensity approach on Runway 16 with a CAT III capable system – the highest-level approach lighting system available.
‘More airports worldwide are moving towards CAT III lighting systems that enhance aircraft safety, particularly in conditions of reduced visibility,’ says
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/211206034156-1dc1a0497456ea209f496ca6bd08e055/v1/599319ea7ec5c7f39efe3b8ecc3eecc7.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
Nick Brumley
Brumley. ‘Busy airports and airlines cannot afford to have planes grounded for hours because of fog.’
In South Australia, the Adelaide Airport’s apron and taxiway resurfacing is another recent project. Fulton Hogan engaged Avionics to remove and replace apron and taxiway lighting that was affected by the runway’s new asphalt overlay. Avionics also worked on the removal and replacement of runway lighting affected by the new asphalt overlay at Gold Coast Airport this year.
Installation of LED apron lighting is a key focus. Avionics supplied new ewo LED lighting at a Melbourne Airport apron in 2013, and has since installed ewo LED apron lighting at Sydney Airport and Mackay Airport.
In the defence sector, Avionics has been engaged by CPB Contractors to complete new taxiway lighting at the new hot refuelling point at the redevelopment of HMAS Albatross in New South Wales, and the AGL upgrade at RAAF Base Curtin is well underway.
Avionics also worked on RAAF Darwin and RAAF Townsville AGL upgrade projects, supplying more than 200 kilometres of cabling and 730 light fittings.
‘The defence industry is a very important Avionics customer,’ says Brumley. ‘We’ve been privileged to work on several defence base runway upgrades since 2008.’
Strong foundations for growth
Avionics has come a long way from humble beginnings. It has grown from a Sydney office with a handful of staff to a leading AsiaPacific airport lighting systems provider with a staff of 80 and offices in Sydney, Melbourne, Hong Kong and, most recently, Brisbane.
The Australian-owned and -operated company secured its first major project soon after opening in 2007. John Holland engaged it to complete new airfield lighting infrastructure at Melbourne Airport’s Taxiway Victor Project – a major installation that has led to several other lighting projects at Melbourne Airport over the past nine years.
Avionics now employs civil and electrical engineers, industrial designers, electricians, builders, plumbers and heavy-equipment operators. It owns and operates $2 million worth of civil plant and equipment, and has duplicates of key equipment used in every project. ‘This ensures that Avionics offers maximum reliability and productivity on every shift, without exception,’ says Brumley.
Avionics is the only local provider that controls the entire process of airport lighting supply and installation. ‘We do everything, from survey work to asphalt hotmix application (Flocon trucks) and paint marking in-house,’ says Brumley. ‘That makes us the leader in installation and major technical modifications for airports in Australia.’
Brumley credits Avionics’ success to its management depth, capacity for innovation and safety focus. An ability to work flexibly and responsively with airports, contractors and the federal government is another strength. Avionics is not tied to any supplier.
‘Avionics’ senior management have each worked on operational airports in the airfield lighting space for more than 20 years,’ says Brumley. ‘They are world-class experts in their field, and are able to apply the latest lighting systems and thinking to Australian airports.’
He says Avionics is trying to reinvent airport lighting systems by leading innovation in its industry. ‘We are very focused on continuous improvement in equipment and processes that lead to greater efficiencies when working on projects with limited time. Our goal is to develop superior installation and maintenance techniques for customers.’
Safety is ingrained in Avionics’ organisational culture. The company’s integrated management structure incorporates operations in safety, quality and the environment. Avionics is compliant with the AS4801 standards for safety management, and is accredited by the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner.
Maintenance a key part of strategy
In early 2015, Avionics established a new maintenance division – separate to its construction arm – after partnering with Sydney Airport and completing the preventative and corrective maintenance of its Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) and High Mast Lighting systems.
In December 2015, Sydney Airport chose the Avionics Maintenance Division as its AGL maintenance provider for two years (with an option for a further three years). Avionics is the first contractor to be engaged by a major federal airport to complete preventative and corrective maintenance on key lighting assets to this scale.
‘We were honoured that Sydney Airport chose Avionics for AGL maintenance,’ says Brumley, adding that Australian airports have always relied on internal staff to maintain their AGL. ‘Avionics knows airport lighting systems back to front, having supplied and installed so many of them. It makes sense for airports to access our expertise in this area.’
Avionics is currently rolling out Airfield Lighting Maintenance Engineering Solutions for Sydney Airport, to track and ensure compliance to MOS139 and ICAO requirements. ‘This will result in increased safety to all Australians and visitors to our shores,’ says Brumley.
Avionics is also consulting with the aviation industry on the development of an Airfield Lighting Competent Person Accreditation Scheme. ‘We want to create a more comprehensive method to test and measure competency in airfield lighting personnel,’ says Brumley. ‘Everybody who works on airport lighting systems must have specialist skills in this area. There is too much at stake to rely on electricians or other technicians who may not specialise in this area or have up-to-date skills in airport lighting.’
Acquiring a civil construction company that specialises in airfields – in order to complete asphalt overlays, spray seals and concrete pavement replacements – is a long-term growth option for Avionics, as is continued expansion in Asia as more Asian airports begin to upgrade runways and lighting systems.
‘Avionics will always focus on airfield runway systems,’ says Brumley. ‘We are passionate about contributing to Australia’s aviation industry and ensuring that it has the world’s most modern, safe runway lighting systems that benefit airports, airlines and passengers.’
To learn more about Avionics, visit www.avionicslimited.com.
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/211206034156-1dc1a0497456ea209f496ca6bd08e055/v1/20a84651f62e1b4c01dda8d4ec38f600.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
LAING O’ROURKE DRIVING INNOVATION IN CONSTRUCTION
A commitment to a unique research and collaboration model is paying off for clients.
Global engineering leader Laing O’Rourke is at the forefront of innovation in the construction sector through its Engineering Excellence Group (EnEx.G).
Established in 2011, EnEx.G has a multidisciplinary, multinational approach to innovation. The group brings together worldclass experts across industry and academia to challenge and change traditional thinking in engineering construction.
‘The construction sector is ripe for disruption,’ says Professor Andrew Harris, Head of EnEx.G in Australia, and a noted researcher at The University of Sydney. ‘Construction traditionally has been more risk-averse and slower to move than other heavy industries. That will change as 3D printing, advanced materials and digital technology redefine how buildings are made and perform.’
Laing O’Rourke established EnEx.G to strengthen its innovation capability, create outstanding client partnerships and solutions, and to champion the engineering profession. The privately owned company saw an opportunity to adapt step-change technologies from other engineering sectors, such as oil and gas, and aerospace, to construction.
‘Our clients appreciate that EnEx.G is pushing the boundaries in engineering construction,’ says Dr Harris, ‘and that EnEx.G has become this amazing platform for collaboration between Laing O’Rourke, its clients and the best discipline-based engineering people from around the world.’
The group has more than 100 fulltime staff and external subject experts in Sydney and London. EnEx.G acts as an internal innovation lab for Laing O’Rourke, an external consultancy for its partners, a research and development arm, and a contributor to the firm’s in-house education programs.
Laing O’Rourke’s foresight with EnEx.G is paying off: the group is commercialising several of its discoveries and has promising projects in its research pipeline.
EnEx.G is about to commercialise the world’s largest 3D printer: a 30-metre-long, six-metre-wide, eight-metre-high device. Four years in the making, the 3D printer builds up layers in three dimensions using wax, concrete or plastic to create a solid structure or mould. 3D construction printing allows for one-off designs at a fraction of the price for typical construction projects that use uniform, mass-produced, prefabricated products. ‘In time, the 3D printer will be an absolute game changer in construction by bringing down costs and giving architects new levels of design flexibility,’ says Dr Harris.
James Gardiner, Head of Design Innovation with EnEx.G in Sydney, is leading the FreeFAB Wax project, which starts commercial production on a construction project in the United Kingdom in late 2016.
Laing O’Rourke has also commercialised redeployable solar-farm technology developed through EnEx.G. The hybrid power plant addresses the need for cheaper off-grid electricity, particularly in remote communities that rely on diesel generators.
‘EnEx.G is doing fantastic work in sustainability,’ says Dr Harris. ‘We are finding ways to better harness renewable energy, and make construction products smarter and more energy efficient using sensors and other technologies.’
Another EnEx.G innovation, a hard hat that measures an employee’s brain and heart activity, as well as fatigue levels, will also be commercialised. ‘By taking an internet-ofthings approach, we can better understand worker safety in real time and help reduce fatalities,’ says Dr Harris.
EnEx.G is also developing digital and virtual reality technology for construction. ‘We’ve done a lot of work on augmented technology that overlays new information on a design and allows users to walk through the project in a digital setting,’ says Dr Harris.
Advanced materials are another EnEx.G focus. ‘We have teams working on a new paradigm of advanced materials that are lighter, stronger and more energy efficient, capable of changing colour according to the season, self-healing and more tactile,’ says Dr Harris.
He believes that these and other technologies will drive a wave of construction innovation that could come from outside the sector. ‘The disrupters might be global information technology companies that apply knowledge to construction. That’s why EnEx.G is not bound by traditional focus on sectors or projects. We can look across industry to take the best emerging technologies and find new uses for them in construction. It’s an exciting space for Laing O’Rourke and its clients.’
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/211206034156-1dc1a0497456ea209f496ca6bd08e055/v1/05aa8a5275d152295efad767bc9ec1c9.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
Professor Andrew Harris, Head of EnEx.G
To learn more about Laing O’Rourke, visit www.laingorourke.com.
BUILDING BETTER AND SAFER ROADS
I would like to thank Infrastructure Partnerships Australia for this opportunity to introduce myself to Future Building readers.
I am privileged and honoured to have been appointed as Minister for Infrastructure and Transport as part of the Coalition Government’s front bench. This is a big job, an important job – and I don’t say that lightly.
Safe and efficient transport infrastructure is the backbone of a competitive, productive and growing economy. Well-planned, welltimed and well-positioned infrastructure is key to reducing costly, frustrating and counterproductive urban congestion. It is vital in keeping the supply chain flowing from our mines and our farm gates to markets, ports and supermarket shelves; and it is crucial in ensuring that we maintain a competitive edge in the global market.
We are rolling out a $50-billion infrastructure investment program – the largest infrastructure investment by any Commonwealth Government in Australia’s history. We are investing in more than 1000 projects across the country, including the upgrade of major transport corridors like the Pacific and Bruce highways, and key regional roads. In fact, in 2016–17, the Commonwealth Government’s infrastructure investments will total $8.9 billion – a record for a single year.
But that is not where it ends. When you build good infrastructure, you can change lives – and you can save lives. It’s important to think about that aspect of the infrastructure equation.
Our record investment is building better and safer roads right around Australia. It is upgrading and building better bridges, it’s improving accident black spots, it’s installing new rest areas for the heavy vehicle sector around the country, it’s saving lives, and it’s reducing the capacity for serious injuries to occur on our roads.
I’m very passionate about road safety; it’s one of the things that’s driven me to get involved in politics. That’s why I helped form the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety, a bipartisan friendship group that comes together to see how we can work to reduce the road toll. I am determined to continue to work hard and seek out every avenue available to promote a holistic system of safer drivers, safer vehicles and safer roads, to drive down the road toll in the future.
Developing Australia’s infrastructure and improving road safety, however, is not just the province of governments – it requires a concerted national effort that engages the widest possible range of skills, expertise, resources, ideas and innovative funding models, including greater privatesector investment.
But it’s not all about roads. We’re investing in freight growth, including rail and intermodal hubs, we’re investing in coastal shipping, in the aviation sector, and in a host of regional projects.
Over the coming months, I look forward to engaging with industry, local and state governments, and communities across the country to ensure that our infrastructure investments and regional initiatives will strengthen Australia’s ability to compete and excel on the global stage.
Darren Chester Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/211206034156-1dc1a0497456ea209f496ca6bd08e055/v1/72644fc1a361d8e67057daf0a907e208.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)