Category: advocacy

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

The Imperative to Travel Less

In 2009 Professor Will Steffen reminded his audience at the Sustainable Cities forum that humanity’s global footprint had increased from about half a planet earth in 1960 to more than 1.2 planet earths in 2000, that only the poorest countries were living within the means of planet earth, that the US required five and Australia is not far behind. These numbers have increased since then. The bottom line is the imperative to reduce our demands on planet earth – of everything, probably by a factor of 4 or more, noting this imperative does not include the need to reduce greenhouse emissions – that is an additional concern.  

But the factor that must be applied to the transport sector is far greater.

As Patrick Moriarty and his frequent co-author Damon Honnery explain, we have entered a period of “hyper mobility”. The number of passenger kilometres per year has exploded by a factor of 240 between 1900 and 2018. This is an extraordinary increase considering the less than five-fold global population growth during the same period, and is about thirty times the growth in real GDP. The average for motorised travel is now about 6,300 km per person. It is around 30,000 km per person in the US. Australia is not far behind but in some countries it is only a few hundred.  

Moriarty calculates that if each person in the world were to travel 30,000 km per year in motorised transport “world transport energy levels along would be about 668 EJ, greater than total global commercial energy use (578 EJ) for 2018”. This situation is clearly unsustainable. The question is how to apply the brakes. This is the subject of an article by Moriarty and Honnery titled “ Reducing Personal Mobility for Climate Change Mitigation” which has been summarised below by Bart Hawkins Kreps, originally published by An Outside Chance, August 23, 2020.  Refer
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-08-23/hypermobility-hits-the-wall/

 

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

Time for Serious Reform of Melbourne’s Bus Services

For most Melburnians buses are their only form of public transport, but buses are only part of the public transport service. A bus improvement strategy cannot be developed in isolation. It must be an integral part of the public transport network and should be the “glue” that ties the entire public transport network together. One of the main problems with Melbourne’s bus service is there are not enough of them, particularly during off-peak or weekends. But the network itself also requires a radical overhaul. 

The bus network shown above is out of date. PTV do not publish maps of the bus network any more so we do not know what it really looks like today although it will not have changed much. To the untrained eye the routes appear confusing and provides little information about connectivity with bus routes, tram and train lines and how this could be used to get around Melbourne.  

The need for network reform/redesign has been understood for many years but despite several attempts there has been little progress. Introduction of the “Smart Bus” demonstrated the potential for significant patronage increases and their introduction has been a success. But the Smart Bus is only a small part of the network and much of the bus network remains poorly patronised. Introduction of electric buses will result in improved energy efficiency (although it will never meet a zero-emission target) but efficiency improvements must be matched by improved patronage. Running empty EV buses is not what we want.

The new bus plan developed by John Stone et al, discussed below (published in The Age 23 July) is welcomed and deserves serious consideration but it raises many questions. Some of these include:

  1. The extent to which this model can be replicated more widely throughout Melbourne as part of an integrated public transport plan which embraces all modes of travel ie trains and trams as well as buses, and how easily can this be done?
  2. Could other network design techniques be included?
  3. What is the strategy for implementation?  Stone recommends wiping the slate clean and starting afresh, but funding constraints would limit the extent to which this could be achieved, so a strategy based on incremental change to some extent would be necessary. Such a strategy would have to consider traveller’s needs to ensure the loss of existing services was compensated by new routes and service frequencies.
  4. How would the introduction of new network elements be prioritised?
  5. The bus plan has been developed to a large extent on business-as-usual projections and emission reduction targets that are increasingly seen as obsolete. The existing target of zero by 2050 is well short of what is required. The Climate Council advises a 75% reduction by 2030 and zero by 2035 if we are limit global warming to 2 degrees. This is far greater than the 43% reduction legislated by the Federal Government. International pressure will demand more ambitious targets and ultimately there will be penalties for non-compliance.
  6. The extent to which Australia can meet this target is problematic and will compromise the capacity of many people to travel. It will also have significant implications for Melbourne’s economy: its ability to provide essential goods and services including food and water, the kind of jobs that have meaning in a zero-world economy, how it functions as a city, where people live and the population that can be supported. This will in turn determine the demand for transport and patterns of travel behaviour which must in turn be reflected in a new public transport plan for the future.    

Whilst the need for network reform is urgent, it will take time to implement. In the meantime a lot can be done to improve service quality on existing bus routes now. Introduction of bus priority on roads using a variety of measures, including traffic signalling and bus lanes would increase the speed and reliability of bus services and could be carried out quickly at relatively low cost. Improved customer information such as maps which illustrate how travellers can use the system to get around Melbourne would cost very little. These are only a sample of the kind of low cost measures that can be carried out to improve bus services now. The temptation is to treat these as isolated bus issues but they must be integrated with other elements of the public transport network so it can provide a seamless service between the different modes ie trams, trains and buses.   

Electric buses across the west every 10 minutes – it’s not a dream

John Stone, July 23, 2022

Greenhouse gas emissions from transport are growing faster than any other sector of the economy – it is time to finally put the brakes on.

Despite all the clamour for greater incentives for us to drive electric cars, the surest way to meet our climate targets is to find ways for us to drive less. Offering alternatives to driving is also essential for many living in Melbourne’s car-dependent suburbs, where a second or third car is an increasing burden for households squeezed by higher interest rates and fuel prices.

The quickest and easiest way to address both rising transport emissions and living costs is to re-invent Melbourne’s broken bus system for the 21st century.

Our recently completed and externally reviewed research at the Melbourne Centre for Cities, shows how we can within only a few years, move to clean electric buses operating on a fast, frequent, connected network that gets us where we want across Melbourne’s suburbs.

The Victorian government’s recently released Zero Emissions Vehicle Roadmap is moving in the right direction with subsidies for zero emissions vehicles (ZEV), new charging infrastructure, and a ZEV bus trial. But, the growing public appetite for climate action and rapid increases in the cost of living mean that we can and must be more ambitious. So far, there are firm commitments from the Victorian government for only 341 new electric buses to be in service by 2030. This is less than 20 per cent of Melbourne’s current route-bus fleet.

Our work with industry insiders shows how we can do better.

We know that electrification changes just about every aspect of bus operations from depot layouts to maintenance techniques and the way power is delivered and paid for. We will need strong government leadership to manage costs and risks across multiple industries and strict rules about what happens to the diesel fleet, with clear timelines for them to be off the road, not just sold on for other uses.

Battery-electric buses are already operating in many places overseas . The government could make an informed call now on technical specifications for vehicles and charging infrastructure, and use its buying power to establish the necessary supply chains and performance regulations. This is possible because the state ultimately pays for the capital and operating costs of Melbourne’s buses.

But there is a catch. Melbourne’s buses run under 28 separate contracts with fourteen private operators – some big multinationals, others small family businesses delivering only a few services. Many operators have, over decades, developed a sense of ownership of “their” routes and resisted efforts to simplify the system. This model cannot accommodate the transition to electric buses. So, the expiry of most of the smaller contracts in mid-2025 is an important deadline for finding new ways for government and contractors to collaboratively manage the transition.

This transition to cleaner buses is only the first step. It won’t help the climate or ease suburban transport woes if we run clean buses on today’s convoluted routes and unreliable timetables which only very few Melburnians use. We need more Melburnians using buses.

Fortunately, there is a proven approach to bus service design, articulated by University of Melbourne researcher Paul Mees in the 1990s, that can help us get the most value from a new electric bus fleet. Paul’s work showed how some cities, by exploiting what he called the ‘network effect’, attract drivers onto public transport even at residential densities comparable to suburban Melbourne. They do this by operating fast and frequent services connected in a grid that makes it easy to travel to many destinations. Effectively, the convenience that travellers find so appealing in London and Paris can be reproduced in the suburbs using electric buses.

This approach underpins Victoria’s 2021 Bus Plan. This plan is a great first step, but it is a more of a mud map than the detailed blueprint we need for the next term of state government.

Better Buses for Melbourne’s West

 

Michael Buxton

In Better Buses for Melbourne’s West, we use the Remix transit planning tool to show how a modern bus network would give communities in Melbourne’s west an alternative to driving.

We started by drawing a grid network on key arterial roads that would run at a 10-minute frequency all day (including weekends) with an average speed of 25 km/h.

We were surprised to find that a new network could be delivered using existing operational budgets for buses in the west, plus a modest top-up to keep pace with population growth.

Capital costs, for this first stage, are also low, with upgrades only needed at bus stops and at key intersections to give buses priority.

Once it’s up and running, we could super-charge the network, making it even faster and cheaper to run by investing in internationally proven techniques to isolate buses from other road traffic.

Melbourne’s plan for the future will transform the CBD and surrounding suburbs

 

Nicholas Reece

Deputy lord mayor of Melbourne

Our modelling also showed that, on average, more than three times more people could reach shops, services, and opportunities for social interaction at their local centre within 30 minutes on a weekday morning. For Hoppers Crossing, the increase is more than tenfold! And, these new bus services would be within an 800-metre walk of most households in the west. This would be easily accessible for most people and, if linked to affordable on-demand services, would leave no one behind.

Our research shows we can be optimistic about finding alternatives to driving in the suburbs. The task now is for the government to refine a new network through careful planning and community consultation and for all of us to build political support to make a world-class system of clean electric buses a reality in Melbourne before 2030.little 

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

Better Public Transport – It is all about “service”

The quality and timeliness of any service is critical for any business if it wants to remain relevant or survive in a competitive market place. And this applies to public transport. The service might be underwritten by the State government but delivery of poor service, that no one wants comes at a huge cost so why does the government continue to disrupt services on a regular basis.

There was a time when public transport operators in this State put their passengers first, when infrastructure projects and essential maintenance works were carefully planned to ensure passenger services were not disrupted and took responsibility for ensuring passengers were not inconvenienced.

“ If your train is late it’s a 100% failure on our part (Ian Hodges, General Manager, Vic Rail, in reference to an inquiry into factors leading to and causes of failures in the provision of metropolitan and V/Line train services 1978). In the 1970’s when VicRail was starved of funds due to cost overruns of the Underground Loop and cut backs in railway expenditure its General Manager would still take responsibility for service failures. But not the new operator, Connex, who would simply apologise for the “inconvenience” and was not even liable for compensation unless a service was grossly late.

The situation is even worse now. The government assumes it is ok to disrupt services and advises travellers to check whether services are running before making their trip. It is obvious that building mega infrastructure projects has a higher priority now than running an essential service. Just imagine if Qantas adopted a similar approach, apologising for a flight cancellation but advised that substitute buses were available whilst important capital works such as a new terminal were being carried out. It would be out of business in less than a week.

This new government philosophy shows scant respect for the travelling public but also makes no financial sense. It simply does not pay to run a lousy service. Fixed costs are still incurred whether trains run or not and substitute buses do not come free. Disruptions invariably result in lost patronage, and once lost are difficult to get back. It is easier to get new customers than get the lost ones back, who have often committed themselves to alternative travel arrangements such as buying a car.

The impact extends beyond the public transport service’s financial bottom line. It is passed on in the form of more road traffic, pollution, accidents and the demand for more spending on road works. All of this is happening when there is an urgent need to reduce transport greenhouse emissions.    

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

Government Priorities And Getting Value For Money

TfM has expressed concerns over many years about the need for proper process in evaluating and approving capital projects to ensure precious funds are invested in a way that provides the best possible return for the community – now and for the future we must plan for.

There are many areas of real need, where funding is needed desperately but never delivered and these exist in every government portfolio, so it is important to get our priorities right. This situation will become more critical if we enter a period of stagnant or declining fortunes saddled with government and personal debt.

This thinking is particularly relevant for mega infrastructure projects, including the Suburban Rail Loop. We have raised concerns about this project before and it has been the subject of numerous articles and submissions by others but the issues remain unanswered.

The article below by Michael Buxton, which was published in The Age is another example and flags the need for a serious rethink about this project and all others in the government’s Big Build program.        

Rail loop rethink is first major test for new planning minister

Michael Buxton

The two previous Melbourne attempts at circular railways, the Inner and Outer Circle lines, failed. The newest attempt, the Suburban Rail Loop, will repeat this record and become the greatest public transport infrastructure failure in Australia unless substantially altered.

To be successful, cross-suburban public transport must provide multiple routes accessible via many station stops along with fast passenger transfers at interchanges. But the loop is proposed as a single orbital heavy railway beneath middle-ring suburbs with few stations. This cannot provide effective cross-town public transport for a city the size of Melbourne.

Only 15 stations will be provided over the 90-kilometre length of the loop, at an average spacing of six kilometres compared to the average 1.83-kilometre spacing between the 219 existing metro stations. Only four intermediate stations are proposed for the first stage of 26km from Cheltenham to Box Hill, all at major centres and none for the 200,000 residents who live along its route.

As a result, the net shift from roads to public transport would be only 230,000 trips or 0.83 per cent of all travel, hardly a decent return on the more than $100 billion eventual expenditure.

The loop will connect major centres, not communities, but these centres will provide only a fraction of CBD jobs.

A contrasting approach can be seen in the Rail Futures Institute plan. This proposes a range of transit technologies, such as heavy and light rail, using multiple cross-city routes over 223km at a cost of about $31 billion, almost three times the distance of the government’s project for a fraction of the cost.

Another major failing is that loop station connections with radial lines are world’s worst standard. Instead of easy platform transfers, passengers must walk up to half a kilometre between lines or exit one station before descending to another. Many stations are in the wrong locations, particularly those situated long distances from Monash and Deakin universities.

Such design problems are the inevitable outcome of the secretive decision-making around this project. Instead of using public sector and other expertise, the government outsourced the planning and design to a consulting firm and then established a nominally public body which operates essentially outside government and has only one task, to build transport infrastructure.

The Rail Loop Authority continues the Victorian tradition of regarding public open space as free land for development. Moorabbin’s William Fry reserve will be plundered and used for development to raise funds and the Heatherton Chain of Parks concept destroyed as 35 hectares is used for train stabling.

The government has not explained why it is prioritising a rail loop before the Melbourne Metro 2 project or making urgent improvements to the existing public transport system.

Melbourne’s outer suburbs hold 44 per cent of the city’s population but only 4 per cent of their area is served by public transport. Funding the loop project condemns 1.5 million residents in new western, northern and south-eastern suburbs to long-term reliance on cars or to being crammed onto country trains or inadequate metro train services.

Perhaps the biggest issue is the implications for land use. The government claims the loop will transform Melbourne’s shape and growth trajectory by locating large populations in multiple mixed-use suburban centres and also probably along the route.

However, land use impacts were excluded from the scope of the panel evaluating the project’s environmental effects. The government wants the project to proceed without making clear the nature and scale of the associated development.

Yet impacts will be extensive, including large-scale relocation of communities and land uses, high-rise development and other intensified uses, traffic impacts and altered modes of living and working for large numbers of people.

The government has removed all planning decisions for a 1.6-km radius around each centre from local councils and denied the right of residents to be notified of developments or to object.

The Town and Country Planning Association has shown that the area of the precincts around all proposed 15 centres would equal the area of 36 CBDs. It is surely unacceptable that such massive changes to land use are not assessed. All these deficiencies are the inevitable result of the intransigence flowing from an unaccountable governance model

New planning minister Lizzie Blandthorn’s first major test is whether to challenge this model of secretive project design and resistance to change as she considers the panel report on the project.

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

The Illusion of Green energy

Generating energy from any source requires energy to harness and distribute it. This (energy input) varies widely for different energy sources and tends to be overlooked by many politicians and policy makers. It is also downplayed, often ignored by businesses that have a vested interest in promoting them. “Green” hydrogen is a good example and is discussed in a short article by Tom Baxter, which was first published on 1 April 2021, republished in the Conversation 3rd August 2022 and has been republished in this blog.

Why hydrogen energy has seduced a generation of politicians

Published: April 1, 2021

Author Tom Baxter, Honorary Senior Lecturer in Chemical Engineering, University of Aberdeen

Disclosure statement Tom Baxter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Aberdeen provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

Hydrogen is often touted in the scientific and general media as a silver bullet for reaching net zero emissions. Such articles might include the following claims:

  • It’s the most common element on Earth.
  • It can be synthesised from electricity and water.
  • It can be stored and used to produce heat and electricity.
  • It provides energy without harmful CO₂ emissions as it burns to water.
  • When liquefied the energy per unit weight is superior to fossil fuels.
  • It can deliver power via a fuel cell.
  • It can be transported using the existing gas grid.
  • It burns at a similar temperature to natural gas.

Although I could put a “but” after all of the above, hydrogen presents a compelling case for its widespread use to support net zero. So, what’s not to like about it?

Although hydrogen is the most common element in the universe it does not come for free. It is bound up in compounds such as fossil fuels and water and requires energy to break the chemical bonds to release it. It is not energy efficient: for every three units of energy provided by hydrogen you have to put one unit of energy in.

But hydrogen receives so much interest because it fits many business models. Fossil companies like it because it will be derived from fossil fuels for the next decade or more. Gas grid operators and gas boiler manufacturers see hydrogen as their only survival route as fossil fuel burning is being phased out. And the power utility companies also like it as they’ll be able to sell more power thanks to hydrogen inefficiencies.

The hydrogen promotion industry

Hydrogen is being pushed in the UK by various highly influential groups. These include an advisory council – jointly chaired by the government and Shell, an industry taskforce and a cross-party group of MPs and peers, the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Hydrogen, supported by organisations who help running the organisation via its secretariat, Connect.

Supporting organisations include: BAXI, Bosch, Cadent, EUA (Energy Utilities Alliance), Equinor, JM (Johnson Matthey), National Grid, Northern Gas Networks, SGN, Shell.    

The Hydrogen APPG website includes fossil fuel companies, gas grid operators, gas boiler manufacturers and power companies. Organisations who will benefit from the adoption of hydrogen. The group has put out a very favourable report.

There is nothing new or wrong in big business promoting their service or product, as they are mandated by their shareholders to turn a profit. Yet these groupings promote hydrogen in near isolation and do not fully present the benefits in comparison with other net zero heat and power options, for example electrification or biofuels. In this isolated context it is easy for politicians to be seduced with “what’s not to like about hydrogen?”.

Academics at Exeter and Imperial universities recently investigated this hydrogen bias in the UK heat sector. Their study concluded that: “Incumbents [actors within the heat sector] are overselling ‘green-gas’ to policy makers in order to protect their interests and detract from the importance and value of electrification.”

The APPG’s recently issued call for evidence on the role of hydrogen in powering industry may be perceived as an example of such bias. The group’s chairman, Jacob Young MP, said it wanted to hear from all relevant businesses and authorities to “understand what needs to be done to ensure that hydrogen plays a crucial role in industrial decarbonisation”.

So the outcome of the evidence is pre-prescribed to “ensure hydrogen plays a crucial role”. To my mind that is deeply troubling as it gives no scope for providing evidence for the many drawbacks. For example, it will cost much more to provide heat and power with hydrogen when compared with electrification, since inefficiencies mean you have to use much more hydrogen than electricity.

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance best practice buses freeways governance government policy sustainability

Sharing the Road. The imperative for government to make it work

Whilst governments are responsible for providing road infrastructure, they also have a responsibility to ensure it is used in the most efficient and effective manner for the benefit of all road users and deliver optimal outcomes for the community as a whole. Contrary to what many motorists might care to believe, roads are not for the exclusive use of cars. They are shared by pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and others and there are rules which are designed to ensure this takes place. Motorists should also remember that the ability to drive a motor vehicle is not a right – it is a privilege and that there are conditions and rules that must be complied with. It is government’s responsibility to ensure these rules are designed and policed/enforced to make it happen.  

From an environmental and growing community perspective there is an imperative to travel less and more efficiently. Ideally this means more people getting out of their cars and walking and cycling.

Regrettably, as Natalie Fleming writes (Maurice Blackburn blog), this is not happening.

 “There’s a war taking place on our roads – between cyclists and car drivers. At its core, this battle is led by a misunderstanding, from the perspectives of all road users, about equal rights on the road. Each party is frustrated with the other – car drivers are angry with the way cyclists ride, and cyclists are concerned about being injured by oblivious drivers. All these concerns are warranted, but what can we do to bring peace between the parties? Eighty-five per cent of cyclist collisions involve another vehicle. Common accidents include  

  • cyclist being side swiped by an approaching vehicle  
  • dooring – when the cyclist collides with a vehicle door suddenly opened in front of them  
  • when the cyclist is hit from behind.”  

The latest figures report 45 cyclist deaths on Australian roads in 2014, while 5500 cyclists were hospitalised in 2012 due to road accidents. Even a small knock can lead to devastating permanent injuries”.  

Fleming argues the importance of drivers understanding the vulnerability of cyclists and their right to use the road safely, but that is only part of the solution and it is too easy to blame motorists. What we are witnessing is system failure in which there are no simple or single fix solutions and overlook the critical role of government, which has the responsibility for creating the conditions which make this happen. This includes creating the social climate and culture which enables people to comply willingly and respectfully based on a better understanding of why this important. Addressing this requires unpacking the “system” to understand how it works, identify key levers for change and ways in which these can be used effectively.

The list of levers required in this situation is long and requires action at many levels. Donella Meadows in her paper

 “Places to Intervene in A System” provides a list of the types of levers that can be used, in increasing order of effectiveness.   

9. Numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards).  

8. Material stocks and flows.  

7. Regulating negative feedback loops.

6. Driving positive feedback loops. 

5. Information flows.  

4. The rules of the system (incentives, punishment, constraints). 

3. The power of self-organization.  

2. The goals of the system.  

1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise.  

All of the above can be applied, individually or in combination in this situation but the last is the most important. If the State government has the mindset to change the “system” all levers can be used effectively. If not, there will be no change of any significance, in which case road rage and cycling trauma will continue and probably escalate and the ability to meet our social and environmental goals will be jeopardised.

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance best practice train tunnel value for money

The cost of rushed projects

“Nineteen-story Box Hill tower wins planning approval in path of Suburban Rail Loop. Taxpayers look set to fork out for a multimillion dollar land acquisition bill after a 19-storey hotel was given approval to be built in the path of the Suburban Rail Loop”.KIERAN ROONEY AND MATT JOHNSTON, Herald Sun April 19, 2022.

How could this happen to the State’s largest infrastructure project which has not been fully costed but may cost well in excess of $120 billion? A lay person might be tempted to suggest that someone has been very cunning, very stupid or even corrupt. More likely this is the result of system failure that was bound to happen with a mega project such as this that has been rushed without extensive planning. Whatever the cause it should not have happened and would not have happened if the project had been thoroughly evaluated, planned and developed along traditional lines with the appropriate checks and balances that had been employed in earlier times. 

But this may only be the start of many problems that are becoming apparent with this project. Transport experts have already expressed concern about planning and design of station precincts and integration with other elements of the transport network. This will be critical if the SRL is to deliver the quality of service necessary to encourage people to use it in sufficient numbers to justify the huge expense of this project. Often it is the quality of design and attention to detail that determines the outcome and already there are worrying signs of shortfalls in this area.  

But the more important question is whether this project can be justified at all. The first question that must be asked is the extent to which this project improves Melbourne’s transport outcomes for the transport system as a whole, and if this is the case whether there are more cost-effective ways of doing this. System improvements are rarely achieved by a single project such as this. It invariably requires multiple actions in many areas – not just the rail network, the need to respond to a rapidly changing world and the environmental imperative to achieve zero emissions by 2035 at the latest.   

This project achieves none of the above. The project is an addition to the existing rail network and will provide some integration with the public transport service which caters for only a small proportion of Melbourne’s transport task. The impact on public transport patronage is tiny and is confirmed by the SRL Business Case below.   

Greater Melbourne 

  

  

  

Weekday trips in 2056 

No SRL 

With SRL 

Difference 

Private vehicle 

26,803,000 

26,197,000 

-606,000 

Public transport 

3,294,000 

3,530,000 

+236,000 

PT share of motorised trips 

10.9% 

11.9% 

+1.0% 

SRL boardings 

  

433,700 

+433,700 

  

  

  

  

Weekday trip-km in 2056 

  

  

  

Private & public together* 

252,003,000 

249,070,000 

-2,933,000 

Average km per trip 

8.4 

8.4 

  

* trip-km are not broken down between private and public 

These numbers take into account land use changes the SRL will ‘induce’ in each SRL station precinct. The overall effect is to increase PT’s share of motorised travel by 1% Melbourne-wide. Better integration of the public transport system is necessary but can be achieved much more quickly and cost effectively in other ways. 

The SRL will do nothing to address systemic problems that already exist within the transport network as a whole which includes all modes of transport. Any environmental impact will not be realised for many years by which time social, economic and environmental conditions will have necessitated significant changes to the transport task and the way people travel. Given its lack of flexibility there is a high risk this new project will become a stranded asset leaving a legacy of debt that will become an increasing burden for future state governments and the broader community.  

The most appropriate transport strategy today is one that focuses on actions and projects that achieve rapid reductions in greenhouse emissions. This requires many actions across the transport network applied to all modes of travel. This will be denied by the SRL which will take the lion share of funding leaving very little for anything else.  All of these issues should have been addressed in a feasibility study that should have been carried out before any commitments were made. In this case a rough, back of the envelope assessment should have been sufficient to eliminate it as a worthwhile project.

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance best practice public transport train

Fundamental need to understand the business

Good transport policy must be based on a sound understanding of the transport service, particularly by the public service whose responsibility is to provide frank and fearless advice and a willingness of the Minister to listen. Whilst this may sound obvious, too often this is not the situation and is highlighted recently in a policy decision by the Minister in relation to catering services on Albury V/Locity service, with a critical response quoted below.

From Ben Carroll .. (in a written response to a CUSTOMER who had the temerity to enquire re Albury V/Locity and the elusive catering services)

“With regards to the configuration of the new standard gauge VLocity trains, the three-car modular configuration enables the greatest flexibility to scale up services with peak demand. This is better for the environment and provides a greater cost benefit to the taxpayer. When the Albury services consist of six cars, they will not operate with two buffets open simultaneously. One buffet will be open for part of the journey, with the second buffet to open for the second part of the journey, using the same Conductor.”

Quoting from a critical observer “Interesting, but lacks an understanding of how the buffet car is operated and its value to travellers. Implementation means one person will have to do multiple stocktakes counting “teaspoons” in both buffets (which typically takes 15’ to open up and another 15’ to take stock and close). So on the Up journey, the buffet will actually be open from Chiltern to Violet Town, then in the second set from Avenel to Donnybrook if you are lucky”. Our cynical observer continues:

“I can see the VLP blurb now ” The 0630 Albury – Melbourne service will have on-board catering arrangements which V/line has especially arranged for your travelling inconvenience.
1. Customers boarding at stations between Albury and Euroa in the trailing 3 carriages are requested to defer their hunger until Chiltern and be sure to have made all purchases by Violet Town. Those in the leading 3 cars – see below re BYO arrangements.
2. Customers boarding at stations between Euroa and Seymour in the leading 3 cars are asked to defer their hunger and purchase their refreshments only between Avenel and Donnybrook. Those in the trailing 3 cars – see below re BYO arrangements.
3. All customers joining at any station in either section of the train are offered the added convenience of bringing your own refreshments which may be consumed at any time. V/Line do hope you enjoy the flexibility these unique on-train catering arrangements offer !!!”. And further…..

“All totally avoidable if we had 6 sets as 4 car consists (seating 230) with one buffet car which would have been cheaper both capex wise; and opex wise than a mix of 3 & 6 car sets”.

With respect to environmental benefits, these could be increased by improving the quality of service to encourage more people to travel be train instead of car or coach supported by a marketing plan that encourages more people to travel off-peak. It would also improve VLine’s financial bottom line. The more important question is how will this service operate in a zero-emission world? How will the locomotives and other operations be powered? By electric power, or hydrogen? How will this be achieved in an environment in which energy, materials of all kinds and finance will become increasingly constrained? None of this will happen overnight – it needs a plan but time is running out. The carbon budget to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees will, at current trends be exhausted within six years and ten years to limit it to 2 degrees.

Sadly, none of the concerns raised about the buffet operations are rocket science, just plain common sense which is often lacking and reflected in poor or misguided policy. Sadly this situation is not confined to transport and occurs in all tiers of government. Much of this is a reflection of a civil service that has been run down over a long period of time, increasingly fragmented and lost much of its expertise and corporate memory as a result of contracting out to businesses or consultancies in the private sector. It is further weakened by restructuring, increasing politicisation and substitution of permanent employment with contract arrangements which can encourage advice the minister would like to hear, instead of frank and fearless advice which the minister may sometimes not like to hear and risk compromising the renewal of the employment contract.

There is no suggestion that parties involved in the situation outlined above did not set out to provide the best possible outcome. It is most likely another example of system failure which made this difficult. This has occurred with only minor consequences and can be easily rectified but there are many situations in which the community pays a huge price for poor policy decisions. There are no simple single fix solutions unfortunately. Addressing this requires fundamental system change and reform which is becoming increasingly urgent, particularly in response to the bigger environmental challenges confronting us now.

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance best practice car park public transport

Sunshine Super-Hub Still Fails

The following article by John Hearsch, President of Rail Futures Inc provides a clearer understanding of the importance of reinstating the standard gauge platform at Sunshine which has been omitted in the latest plan for the redevelopment of the rail station and was reported in an earlier blog. It highlights the importance of careful planning for all infrastructure projects.

The Rail Futures Institute reports that the failure to re-instate the former standard gauge platform as part of the forthcoming Sunshine station re-development will seriously impact North Eastern/Riverina travellers some years in advance of the Airport railway opening, in fact from as early as 2025 with the Metro 1 tunnel opening.  

Rail Futures President John Hearsch said “there will be a number of serious impacts on North Eastern/Riverina travellers from 2025 when the Metro 1 tunnel opens, unless the former standard gauge platform at Sunshine is re-instated by then.” From 2025 with the Metro 1 tunnel opening connectivity with Metro train services will alter for some suburban lines and the opportunity will present itself at Sunshine to vastly improve connectivity between other V/Line train services and also offer North Eastern/Riverina travellers direct connectivity to new high demand inner CBD locations adjacent to the five new Metro 1 stations.  

From Metro 1 opening in 2025 suburban trains proceeding from Sunbury through the CBD to Dandenong, Pakenham and Cranbourne will be routed via the NEW Metro 1 tunnel and five (5) new stations at ARDEN, PARKVILLE, STATE LIBRARY, TOWN HALL and ANZAC (at the Domain) to then continue via Caulfield to Dandenong, Pakenham and Cranbourne. As such Albury / Riverina passengers on standard gauge trains passing through Sunshine will NO LONGER be able to change at Southern Cross for stations on the Dandenong, Pakenham and Caulfield lines, e.g. travelling to Clayton for Monash University or Monash Medical Centre. Instead such passengers would have to change trains TWICE; first at Southern Cross and then again at Caulfield to reach Clayton. 

However, Mr Hearsch pointed out “Re-instatement of the standard gauge platform at Sunshine will allow Albury & Riverina passengers to simply transfer to Metro 1 trains at Sunshine maintaining direct connectivity from the North East and Riverina to the Dandenong, Pakenham and Cranbourne Lines with the one simple change of trains at Sunshine, maintaining direct access to Clayton.” Further the Rail Futures Institute says that failure to re-instate the standard gauge platform at Sunshine will amongst V/Line regional trains deny NORTH EAST / RIVERINA passengers of the benefit to access via Metro 1 the five new CBD stations at Arden, Parkville, State Library, Town Hall and Anzac.  

This is particularly important in respect of direct access at Parkville station to the adjacent Royal Melbourne Hospital, Peter Mc Callum Cancer Centre, Dental Hospital, Royal Children’s Hospital and Melbourne University Precinct. Mr Hearsch added “without this direct connectivity to Parkville, passengers will be forced to use taxis, or multiple tram routes from Southern Cross to reach these destinations and in doing so will incur up to 30 minutes of additional travel time.” “Such indirect travel with multiple changes being most inconvenient to those with young children and the elderly especially those with a disability.”  

Mr Hearsch also pointed out “That with a standard gauge platform at Sunshine, Albury / Riverina passengers would have the bonus convenience of direct interchange with frequent V/Line train services to/from Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo; allowing these travellers to save on average 30 – 40 minutes on their through journey ; by NOT having to go all the way into Southern Cross only to come out again through Sunshine on their Geelong, Ballarat or Bendigo train – as currently happens.”

Categories
advocacy climate change value for money

Getting our Priorities Right

Rising fuel prices are a signal to reduce travel – drive less often, over shorter distances and do so more efficiently. It is a message any responsible government should be repeating as part of its commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions and should be promoting opportunities to make this transition as easy as possible for all travellers.  

The message from the UN Climate Change Conference COP26 in November 2020, a bit more than a year ago was absolutely clear – if humanity is to have a future on this planet it must reduce emissions quickly starting now. It is difficult to think of an issue of greater priority.

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance best practice value for money

Desperate Need for Proper Process

The federal treasurer’ announcement of major capital spending on more transport infrastructure projects was criticised correctly by Marion Terrill (The Age Tuesday 29 March) because they were not supported by a business case. But one should also ask where is the plan, how do these projects fit within it and perhaps even more fundamentally what is the future that the plan is based on?  

These are fundamental questions that should be addressed in any investment appraisal – it is simply a matter of proper process which is often thrown out the window at election time. It is the last question ie the future we must plan for that is of most concern because it is rarely addressed with the rigor it deserves and is invariably based on business as usual scenarios.   

Extreme weather events that have occurred over the last decade which are being repeated with increasing severity and frequency should remind all policy planners and governments that the world we must plan and design infrastructure for is rapidly changing. The future will not be business as usual and infrastructure projects progressed on this basis carry a risk of quickly becoming redundant. In this scenario we will soon be left with a lot of stranded assets (or remnants of stranded assets) and a mountain of debt that should have been spent on other areas of real need.

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance government policy

Why the city needs safe and more reliable alternatives to car usage

Blaming bike lanes for traffic jams is flawed logic and ignores the lessons of ‘induced demand’.

We can’t build our way out of congestion. Numerous traffic studies show that more road space for cars leads to more people driving, further clogging our roads – the induced demand effect.

Understandably, people hate congestion – it’s dead time. As Melbourne’s traffic worsens, more people will look to avoid the city if they feel there is no safe and reliable alternative to sitting in traffic jams.

But if we provide alternatives that get more cars off the road, everyone benefits. For drivers, it means less time in traffic and travelling to the city becomes a better experience. For everyone else, the environmental and productivity benefits are huge.

The return to city offices is just beginning to ramp up, but the good news is induced demand also impacts bike lanes. Some of Melbourne’s cycling networks have seen increased use of up to 300% over the past two years.

Data collected by the Herald Sun last week shows that cyclists already account for one in four vehicles on Melbourne’s streets. (see below media article). This compares to one in five cyclists prior to COVID-19 and one in 20 back in 2007.

Source – Herald Sun – Friday, 18 March.

Cities like London, New York and Paris are aiming to become cycling and walking friendly, seeking to cut congestion, improve air quality and create vibrant and inclusive neighbourhoods.

Research shows safety is the number one barrier for people who are interested in cycling, but don’t. Significantly, council data shows an 80% jump in people travelling on protected bike lanes during February, compared with the previous month.

Early in the pandemic we identified the risk of a growing number of city-goers preferring their cars long-term to travel to and around the inner city. This trend has now materialised.

Road use in early March was 92% of pre-COVID levels and growing by 1% each week. Meanwhile, public transport remains around half (53%) of pre-COVID levels.

Encouraging people safely back on public transport, combined with a network of separated cycling corridors, will get the city moving again and benefit our economy. Flexible start and finish times, cheaper fares for buses and permanent off-peak travel discounts would go a long way to cut congestion across all forms of transport.

If we don’t make a change now towards safe and more reliable alternatives to car usage, our traffic will keep going in the wrong direction. And that will undermine the city’s revival.

Jonathan Spear is CEO of Infrastructure Victoria.

Transport for Melbourne is a think tank and advocacy group of transport professionals whose mission is to promote an understanding of issues that Melbourne faces and how these can be better addressed.

Facebook Youtube Twitter Envelope
Subscribe to blog via email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts.

Join 39 other subscribers.

© 2021 Transport for Melbourne. All rights reserved.

Contact us