Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities
Current and future developments in the use of land-based mass transit

JEFFRIES, Mr Roger, Technical Director, Transport Advisory; and ANZ Technical Practice Leader, Transport Advisory, AECOM

VOISIN, Mr Mathieu, Technical Director, AECOM


CHAIR: Welcome. Is there anything you wish to add about the capacity in which you appear today?

Mr Voisin : I arrived in Australia four months ago.

CHAIR: From?

Mr Voisin : From France.

CHAIR: I thought so!

Although the committee does not require you to give evidence under oath, I should advise you that this hearing is a legal proceeding of the parliament and therefore has the same standing as proceedings of the respective houses. The giving a false or misleading evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded as a contempt of parliament. The evidence given today day will be recorded by Hansard and attracts parliamentary privilege. I now invite you to make an opening statement before we proceed to discussion.

Mr Jeffries : I'd like to thank you, Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the invitation to attend today. We welcome the opportunity to participate in this inquiry. Firstly, I'd like to introduce AECOM and to familiarise you with our organisation and our relevant experience as pertinent to this inquiry. AECOM operates on seven continents in more than 150 countries and employs over 87,000 people worldwide. Locally, in Australia and New Zealand, we have over 20 offices and over 3,000 staff. We look forward to sharing our organisation's experience and knowledge to benefit this inquiry and future development in these fields in Australia.

To this end I'd like to introduce AECOM's leadership in this field around the world. Firstly, there is the CAPRI project in the UK, in which AECOM is leading 19 partners on four trials in London and Bristol to design, develop and test a commercially viable on-demand driverless shuttles system. Secondly, there is the national automated bus program consortium in the USA, in which AECOM is working with 15 state transit agencies across the United States to create a commercially viable market to deploy pilot projects for automated bus and bus rapid transit systems. Thirdly, there is the DriveOhio program in the United States, which is a consortium of six companies working across the fields of data, security, systems, applications and stakeholder consultation to help the Ohio state to assess both transit corridors and to define its connected and automated vehicle strategy. Lastly, I'd like to highlight that across the world AECOM is providing technical support to transit authorities and rail operators to implement automation projects in the rail and metro fields, working in cities and with organisations such as MTR in Hong Kong, with Transport for London in London, MTA in New York, and here in Sydney with Sydney Metro and Sydney Trains.

Mr Voisin : We strongly believe in the potential benefits of automation, especially when automation technology is combined with a rise in a sustainable power supply for vehicles and access to new forms of data, which will transform urban mobility and present significant opportunities to ensure new benefits such as fast and safer journeys. As has been said before, more than 90 per cent of road injuries are caused by human error. In Australia that represents $27 billion a year, which is more or less the GDP of a country like Bosnia in Europe. Automation will also ensure improved urban environments, if combined with new power supplies. At first there will be better air quality in the centre of conurbations and more efficient use of road space and public assets. It will also create opportunities for new amenities in city centres. We also believe it will bring a truly more inclusive mobility for all kinds of people—younger, older, disabled people. It will bring new passenger-centric services. New data assets, such as real-time data, will support seamless end-to-end trips. We also think that productivity will be increased, firstly by comfort during trips. It will reduce the so-called lost time during commuting. Alongside this, it will also enhance capacity, reliability and flexibility on mass transit corridors, whether they be road or rail.

We also know that there are major social and economic challenges to be addressed first, with the first one being the social acceptance of automation. This is necessary prior to transition to full automation. It will require the federal and state governments to inform and educate people and help labour towards a transition in skills. We think it will be a very sharp issue to get the right balance between public and private vehicles, shared or personal vehicles, as automation and ride sharing could also make mobility more affordable and therefore increase congestion and urban problems without the correct regulation and without the correct governance. For instance, we'd like to give the example of the ride-sharing markets in New York City, which is quite an advanced city for these markets. The cost of congestion is estimated to be a $100 million extra a year since the new application-based services have emerged. Meanwhile, there has been a decrease of 30 million passengers per year in the subway systems. So the question of governance is quite central.

Retrofitting and retraining are also a very sharp issue regarding automation. If the global market for automated metros is quite mature the main issues will be on retrofitting infrastructure. It is technically complex and it costs to transition employees to new roles that are oriented towards service to passengers and oriented towards technology supervision. We can talk about the examples in Paris, for instance.

Last, we also think that for what concerns automated road mobility, regulation is a key issue in regard to liability with that type of governance—maybe privacy, maybe cybersecurity and also new business models. Technologies need also to be tested in various contexts, especially in Australia, where there is a very wide variety of climates and appropriate legal frameworks are still under development. Thank you.

Mr ZIMMERMAN: I want to start with one question, because you have very patiently been sitting through a lot of the evidence this afternoon. I'm just wondering whether there's anything you've heard presented to the committee today where you might take a different view.

Mr Jeffries : One thing that's been mentioned a few times today is around not being the first and the early adopter on the curve.

Mr ZIMMERMAN: Do you think we should be the first?

Mr Jeffries : Not necessarily, but I think that there are already examples that are taking place around the world—I'm happy to talk about them, or provide further evidence after today for your consumption at your own leisure—around the trials and developments in the space that are taking place around the world where people are already adopting these. One of the points that was raised earlier was around the development in automation on the road network. There are various views around whether that will create a doomsday scenario in terms of congestion or whether it will actually increase mobility for everyone and make a utopian society. I'd take a step back from that. My own personal view, reflecting on my career as a transport planner, is that, really, we need to think about what we want to achieve in terms of outcomes for the city. Technology really is a way of us getting to an end state, an outcome that we want to achieve. The last group of gentlemen who sat in front of you talked about the potential for automation and potentially having automated lanes. To my mind we need to think about the capacity of the road network in terms of the movement of people and not vehicles, and that automation helps you get there. We already well know about things like bus rapid transit and the carrying capacity per lane of a bus, buses in sync with certain infrastructure or certain types of services and the difference between that and having people in individual vehicles of much lower occupancy, and that helps us get more out of our public assets, which are the roads. I mentioned the trials that are going on in the United States at the moment that AECOM is involved. We're trying to help transit agencies develop their understanding of what the potential is for automation and bringing that into the bus rapid transit market and what they can do in our urban cities. That's one point I'd raise. Maybe you want to come back to that; I have a few other views.

Mr ZIMMERMAN: The point that the Planning Institute was making really was that you've got to start with what you want to achieve. I suppose the thing is not to let yourself be shaped by the technology but to use technology as a tool to shape where you want the cities to be.

Mr Jeffries : Very much so.

Mr ZIMMERMAN: But it is interesting in the sense that without us having a full understanding of where it's going to be in 10, 20 or 30 years time it is hard to second guess or plan in some ways to that degree of granular detail.

Mr Jeffries : Very much so; you're right. My personal opinion—Matt can jump in if he wants, as well—and other people have mentioned this, is that even cities like Sydney have been around for a long time. There's a certain built and urban form which has been shaped by a number of things: the way the city is developed based around its economy and its transport, but also the land availability. Urban form doesn't actually tend to change much over time. It may get slightly denser. Some industries may go and others may move in. We may convert land from residential to employment or vice versa. But the general structure and nature of the city can stay as it is. That does tend to lend itself towards mass transit connections which support the ongoing productivity and livability of a city for people to get to work, for them to get to education, for them to get to leisure opportunities et cetera.

As transport planners, I think we would think of the city as a network, as a system, as others have mentioned already, and that we need to plan for an interconnected system which has mass transit as its spine. That can be segregated rail networks, underground or overground metros, and on-street transit which has a much higher carrying capacity than individual vehicles. Obviously individual vehicles will have a role still to play in that. But I think we have to think about the transit network at a range of levels, from those which are completely segregated—which have the highest carrying capacity because they don't have to interact with any other modes or people walking on the street or intersections, for example—right through to intermediate transit, which links our inner urban centres and outer urban centres. Right now they might not need that carrying capacity, but you want to build in the flexibility and viability to change it over time as the city continues to evolve.

Mr Voisin : I would add a point regarding the technical complexity of implementing automated mass rapid transit and the social complexity. I don't think, regarding the experiences in Paris, that there is a link between complexity and the total length of the line. Actually, if you look at the figures in Paris, there are going to be, from 2025 to 2035, 200 kilometres of new automated Metro lines. Some of those lines are 35 kilometres long. One of them, line 18, will be up to 50 kilometres long.

Mr ZIMMERMAN: That's a Metro line?

Mr Voisin : An automated Metro line.

Mr ZIMMERMAN: Fifty kilometres long?

Mr Voisin : Fifty kilometres long, yes, for line 18. It is a technical challenge, but, if it's well thought through in terms of governance of skills, the social challenge can be handled quite well.

Mr ZIMMERMAN: Is that the conversion of an existing line or a whole new line?

Mr Voisin : No, that's a new line. But for instance, when RATP in 2012 converted the existing line 1 into a fully automated one, it was a very big and complex infrastructure challenge, but it was also a very complex social challenge, and it was handled quite well.

Mr ZIMMERMAN: Complex because people were nervous about automatic rail or because of the workforce issues?

Mr Voisin : Both. It was complex because this line was used during the day as a classic line, and it was worked out and changed during the night with a brand-new system, so there was system redundancy. There was a lot of investment. It was a lot of technical complexity, but it was addressed. In the same interval, there was a social program which permitted the workforce to be enhanced and to be transformed, and new skills were created towards system supervision and towards passenger-centric services. The important thing in that program is that it had five different projects, one project for rolling stock, one social project for systems, one project for communications, one project for civil engineering and one project itself for the evolution of skills.

CHAIR: Can I just pop back to what you said, Roger—I'm trying to understand it correctly—about not being first, to avoid other people making mistakes without that hands-on experience, and about this technology if not properly implemented. In all of the evidence yesterday, everybody knew that the idea was to have shared vehicles, autonomous vehicles, vehicles that may be owned privately but then put into a pool so they're constantly being used, so you're reducing the number of vehicles and making them more active. When it was necessary to use an autonomous vehicle to go not to a transport hub but on a separate trip, there would be greater capacity for the road because they would get more autonomous vehicles onto that road, and so all things would be working to an efficiency end. But I think what you're raising is the possibility that, if we don't govern this correctly, it could backfire, with a ridiculous usage of autonomous vehicles with only one person, for instance, and a lot of dead trips with no person on them. That would create an enormous amount of congestion if it's not policed or regulated correctly. Is that what you were saying to begin with?

Mr Jeffries : Yes, I'd certainly agree. To pick up on the last point that you raised there, 'dead running' is the term that's used in public transport when you're running buses empty or running them back to a depot. I've heard it referred to, in terms of autonomous vehicles, as zombie trips, where you'll be creating new dead running on the road network in an already congested urban network. Let's take Sydney, for example. If you have someone who for whatever reason chooses to drive to work in the city in the morning, they would drive in and park their car; it would sit there during the day, and they would drive back in the evening. That's one trip in the morning and one trip in the evening. If they have an autonomous vehicle trip which brings them in—because Sydney CBD is a hub of employment but not a hub of residences, there's not a major demand for vehicle trips going out again—that trip will then have to do a zombie trip back out on the road network in the morning peak hour to go and collect someone else. So you've then doubled the number of trips on the road network in the morning peak, potentially. I think that's where we need to think about how we can regulate the use of the road network—for example, if we're talking about the automation of vehicles on the road network—to ensure that we don't end up with a perverse outcome like that.

CHAIR: So it's about being forewarned to be forearmed, but also, as these things roll out, we observe critically and then take action so we don't make the same mistake that's been made elsewhere.

Mr Jeffries : Very much so. Going back to the example that Matt gave, New York City has seen a massive increase in congestion with the shared mobility market. What we've seen around the world with shared mobility—and we're talking about the likes of Uber and Lyft and other operators; it's not about any one operator; there's a whole range of operators—is that in the cities where there are advanced markets for those operators there has been an increase in congestion. What they've typically done is cannibalise the public transport market. As in the example of New York City, there were 30 million fewer subway trips in one year, related to the intervention of the ride-sharing market. That's not a market which is universally equitable to everyone in society; it tends to pick up the top 10 per cent of the public transport market. People who have the economic means to travel in a slightly more comfortable environment, one might say, for very little more—a marginal cost on top of what they might pay for public transport—can go in a private ride, or a near-private ride if it's shared with one or two other people, which will take them directly from point A to point B. Whereas if you ride the subway you may have to change once or twice, and that's maybe not quite as convenient.

Certainly we need to think about how those operators can be brought into the mobility mix—both to provide end-to-end journeys but also, potentially, to encourage them to supplement the mass transit network, as was alluded to earlier today—in a way that does actually support the city outcomes that we want rather than, as I said before, resulting in a perverse outcome for the city. In terms of the New York example, just to finish that off, the state or city government has introduced restrictions on the number of rideshare vehicles that can operate within Manhattan. That's only happened in the last six to 12 months, and it's as a result of issues that have been caused by a lack of regulation. In Australia we can learn from things that have happened in a much more advanced market.

Mr Voisin : There was another interesting example in Paris which occurred a few months ago. There was an idea which was held by the mayor of Paris: what could be the impact on traffic if the metro was free? They held a feasibility study and a modelling study, and the output was: today in Paris the model share of walking is close to 50 per cent; the free metro was forecast to cannibalise the modal share of walking and not the modal share of cars. So what initially seemed to be a good idea and a virtuous idea turned out to have a conclusion that nobody expected. They realised that it was not a good idea to make the metro free.

Mr ZIMMERMAN: I think those who have experienced the Melbourne CBD tram network since it became free would argue that there are similar results from that.

CHAIR: It's cannibalised the walking!


Mr Jeffries : Very much so, in other cities in Australia and other towns in Australia—big urban centres and smaller urban centres where there's the traditional free city circulator bus service. Typically, that does remove the local walking trips which you might otherwise seek to encourage short journeys for a range of reasons.

Mr ZIMMERMAN: Trains are congested and put on more services to cope with all people who once walked.

Mr Jeffries : There are a number of other issues at play here that you just alluded to, and Matt alluded to them. We talked about regulation governance. That's also around things such as fares, fare integration and ticketing integration; information provision, to operators, to government and to passengers; and the sharing of information and the sharing of data. There are three parties within that: the sharing of data between government to plan and optimise networks; to operators to deliver networks effectively, to optimise the operations and to deal with perturbations of service and incidents that occur; and to the passenger as well so they can plan journeys and deal with disruptions in services. To give an example of something that's going on in that vein in New York City, AECOM has been working with the metropolitan transit agency in New York City and IBM to bring artificial intelligence into the live operations centre for the rail network and the subway system in New York. The reason for that is to deal with an already highly congested network that's running nearly at capacity, in terms of train services and in terms of passenger capacity, and to deal with issues that will regularly occur on a very busy urban rail service. When there are issues with the service, what they're actually trying to do is find ways to operationally redirect the train along the network to maybe different lines and direct passengers onto those lines to create resilience in the network such that, if there's a failure on one line, you may actually provide increased capacity on an alternative line and, in real-time, divert services to provide alternative capacity. I know that's an example from New York that maybe isn't quite as pertinent to Sydney or Melbourne or anywhere else in Australia, because we maybe don't have the depth of rail services, but there are other examples where that could be used—for example, in the bus network.

Mr ZIMMERMAN: New York has the unique advantage of having, effectively, a duplicated metro system, with its private sector origin.

Mr Jeffries : Of course, but there are parallels here in Australia. We have a very well-coordinated public transit network in Sydney. We have buses, light rail, ferries and rail and soon metropolitan. You can think of similar ways of doing that. Obviously, you can't pick up a ferry and put it on the metro network, but certainly with other modes or other vehicular fleets that are more flexible, like buses, you have the ability to do that.

CHAIR: In our previous inquiry, one of our recommendations was the master planning of infrastructure, and that had to be integrated with land use. It seems that a lot of the problems we are now trying to address with autonomous vehicles is because of a shortfall of adequate mass transport systems. Our rail systems are inadequate; the retrofitting is very expensive with there's very expensive land. When the land is too expensive to acquire, we tunnel. When tunnelling is too expensive, we end up doing nothing, and doing nothing is what we've done a lot of. We've got a deficit of mass transport, I think it's safe to say. One of the issues that stimulated this inquiry was that, when we look at the retrofitting of light rail, for instance—the experience in Sydney going out to Randwick—there's the disruption and the cost. With the advent of autonomous vehicles, there's the opportunity of autonomous buses to platoon up. We do have dedicated bus lanes. Could we make those secure so we can go faster and have greater capacity? Is that a better retrofitting strategy for Sydney, given our problems?

Mr Jeffries : Maybe I could take that first, and I'm sure Matt's got some ideas on that from his experience around the world. In terms of any city—and Sydney is obviously a good example of this—various modes have their function. I think light rail certainly does have a function to play in urban centres. I'd take a step back and think about the outcome that the light rail project in Sydney was designed to achieve, and that was around providing greater capacity in public transport and major corridors in Sydney. That was to link some major urban employment centres and the CBD, and also the health, education and sports precinct around Randwick, the University of New South Wales and the hospital down there.

Moving forwards: obviously, the opportunities presented by autonomous buses mean, for example, that they could do a similar function to achieve a similar goal in terms of capacity and reliability. In my experience, to deliver reliability on the public transport network from on-street transit services really does come down to a couple of things. One of those is about dedicated road space allocation. You mentioned that there are bus lanes in Sydney, and that's correct. Some of them are shared lanes and some operate in one direction, say, at peak times. I think that one of the key things around that light rail project is that it will have a dedicated corridor 24/7. So you can provide that capacity and reliability to passengers at any time of day or night, which is something that attracts people onto public transport.

It's certainly something that operators seek to achieve these days—a consistency and reliability of service at all times. That's what you see actually attracting customers—that certainty around service which they otherwise could get in their own private cars. You could certainly achieve similar things with an automated bus service in future, but I think you'd certainly need to consider the fact that you'd need to have dedicated road space in order to achieve the level of capacity on a corridor and the reliability of service.

Certainly, in terms of operations, you'd need to think about things like coordinated and adaptive traffic control to provide a level of priority to mass transit, which can also be done in an adaptive way, and which can actually also increase, or at least support, private transport access through the city and also walking and cycling access. There are ways of doing that these days and, certainly, that's being done in Sydney with the latest iterations of the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System.

Mr Voisin : I will just add two points. According to what has been said this afternoon, whatever the mode, the corridor is more important. Whether we are discussing guided LRT, or buses or buses which are platooning, thanks to automation, at the end of the day, as long as they're on the streets, infrastructure will be the market and will determine the capability. Every time there is a street crossing to cross, this will define the capability. The time used to go through these intersections will determine whether one system is better than the other. Full capacity will always be given by the infrastructure, so the emphasis should be on this.

Secondly, I would say that automation may be deployed in some hidden spaces. For instance, the first places where RATP deployed automation for buses or for LRTs in Paris was in the depots—the marshalling yards; the places where you park the buses. Actually, it led to greater productivity as, in Paris, spaces in markets and depots are quite small. When buses are automated to be parked, that enables a lot more features. It enables the possibility of earning a lot of space and to organise the workforce differently. Actually, automation was deployed first in those technical spaces in order to have productivity for the public transport operators. It was not oriented towards the public; it was an internal industrial project. But it's still possible to do it without having automation on the streets.

CHAIR: Mathieu, there was the problem that you raised regarding crossroads going over our arteries. In Melbourne there has been an effort to eradicate level crossings, where roads cross train lines, because of safety and congestion issues. In Sydney, should we be looking at the eradication of the equivalent of a level crossing through having flyovers on our main roads? For instance, if we look at Victoria Road, that comes in from Parramatta and goes through Ryde, Balmain and Drummoyne or whatever to get into Sydney. Strangely enough, the closer you get into Sydney, the more crossroads there are. So, just when you need to not have crossroads, you have more crossroads. It surely wouldn't be difficult to establish flyovers every so often to concentrate the back-road traffic on the crossovers, to stop pedestrian crossings going across that road, to retrofit it as a thoroughfare that would have far more controlled roads for autonomous buses—so they could behave more like a train, because one of the benefits of trains is that no-one's going to be on the tracks, hopefully—and also autonomous vehicle movements, which would increase the capacity because you're increasing the speed. Is a retrofitting of infrastructure something that has been thought about? It would appear to be something that should be rolled out on a priority basis based on current congestion levels—prioritised where you've got highest levels of congestion—to ease congestion through getting rid of those crossovers and getting rid of school speed zones on those major roads through having overpasses.

Mr Voisin : I don't know Sydney enough to have a clear answer on that question, but, actually, I can answer with an example from France. Currently what is being done in the central parts of the conurbations in France is rather the opposite. At least, when you have major arterial roads crossing with regular roads, they tend to suppress this two-level crossing, because, as they want more densification, the issues are to lower the speeds of vehicles, to have less traffic and to reroute the bigger traffic rather on the outskirts of the conurbation. Of course, it depends on the context. In some areas of big cities where there is less density, they tend still to make different levels of crossings to enhance more capacity. But, in the more central areas, where the traffic issues are the sharpest, it's rather going, to my knowledge, in the opposite direction. It's rather about putting at-level intersections, reducing vehicle speed and giving priority to certain modes—for example, when you are the closest to the centre, in Europe, the public transport has priority to go through the intersections. But it's rather about reducing speeds and not having two-level intersections, in order to reduce the impacts on the space consumption.

Mr Jeffries : From my perspective, again, I'd probably reiterate that we should think about the urban outcomes that we want. Certainly, in the centre of urban conurbations like Sydney's CBD—and Mathieu gave the example of certain French cities—I think we would generally all agree that we would like to create desirable, walkable environments where people can get around on foot. And, in the more challenged environments, where we have a mixture of modes and a strong desire for movement and land use as well, often it comes down to very difficult and challenging decisions around how you might actually prioritise certain modes on certain streets. So, typically, as Australian cities have grown, like most cities around the world, you get to a point where you start to get to a level of congestion and you're also trying to fit every single mode and every single movement on every street. I think there's an opportunity now—and we're already probably starting to think in that way in cities like Sydney—to actually think about prioritising certain streets for certain modes. You've probably seen that yourselves around Sydney's CBD, with some reprioritisation of certain corridors. Potentially, there's a stronger bus focus, and other corridors that might be parallel maybe become the private transport corridors or the cycling corridors. I think that's a way to think about how to balance some of those competing demands, potentially without some of the infrastructure investment that you might have been alluding to in terms of grade separation.

CHAIR: I'm understanding what Matthew was saying—there might be a little bit lost in translation. We have not had a plan of Sydney. We had roads that became main roads that have strip shops developed around them and now these roads are meant to be transport corridors to get people from A to B and need to move as many cars as possible in a short period of time. We've got these conflicting interests so the trick is how do we retrofit, how do we modify this infrastructure that was designed to do a different purpose to now what is required of it? It would appear that, as Roger was saying, when the purpose of this particular artery that might have had a different purpose historically now needs to be a transport corridor, how do you relieve it of these blockages created by all these crossings, pedestrian crossings and everything else? It would appear there are opportunities in various parts of Sydney to do that. If you were to plan a city from scratch, your highways would be highways and they wouldn't have cross roads. But how do you create a highway out of a subway it was formerly a main road or a way to get your local shops?

Mr ZIMMERMAN: These might make the whole discussion irrelevant, John.

CHAIR: Well, yes, to some degree—I don't know whether we would be having this chit chat backwards and forwards—because you can actually control the traffic. The cars that are going to come in are going to smoothly integrate and so you could make that somewhat obsolete. One of the discussions yesterday was around infrastructure and this technology and are you trying to get technology to do the super amount of lifting? Can you not have some complementary infrastructure to assist the full potential of this technology?

Mr Jeffries : I certainly agree. We'll need to continue to invest in infrastructure, no doubt, as our city continues to grow. We'll be a city of eight million people in the next 20 years so we need to invest in infrastructure, not only obviously in roads but also in public transport and services. And it may be that we need to make some tough decisions around grade separations or building additional levels over and under. The corridor you mentioned before, Victoria Road, I know very well. It happens to go past my place of residence so that's my bus corridor.

CHAIR: So you come in on the 507, do you?

Mr Jeffries : I quite often do, yes.

CHAIR: From Morrison Road?

Mr Jeffries : No, from Roselle.

CHAIR: I used to get out at Morrison Road.

Mr Jeffries : But that particular corridor is one of the most densely served bus corridors in Sydney and yet, as you rightly point out, it's provided with transit efficiency up to a certain point and then you hit the Anzac Bridge, where you run out of transit priority and bus lanes to actually get stuck in traffic along that bridge. So certainly there's is probably a need there to think about that corridor and that's one of many examples where we can look to develop our city to respond to the growth that it is currently experiencing.

CHAIR: It is a clarifying thought when you're sitting in a car that can go over 200 kilometres an hour and the buses keep passing you—something's wrong here. Do you have anything more you'd like to volunteer?

Mr Jeffries : No, only to thank you for your time today and for the opportunity to appear before you. We're more than happy to provide further information on some of those projects that AECOM has been involved in around the world, if that provides some additional information to you.

CHAIR: That would be most welcome. I think our dialogue should continue. Thank you both. Welcome to Australia again.

Mr Jeffries : I've been here for 10 years.

CHAIR: I've only been Australian for one year. Thank you for your attendance and welcome to Australia. If you've been asked to provide any additional information, would you please forward it to the secretariat by Wednesday 6 March. That would be appreciated. You'll be sent a copy of the transcript of the evidence and will have an opportunity to request corrections to transcription errors.

Committee adjourned at 16:09