This is a new agenda for a government that has no plan of any substance for the City of Melbourne let alone the state of Victoria or the transport system itself which services both ie Melbourne and Victoria, so the task of identifying key issues and critical elements of the “Plan” must be taken up by the community.
Tightening economic conditions are now forcing the State government to make significant cuts in budget spending, review priorities and do more with less.
This has created an opportunity for advocacy groups to create a new narrative and use it to encourage government to change its focus. The questions that follow are
firstly what should this new narrative be,
secondly how could it be “sold”,
thirdly what would be the plan to support it and finally the strategy to implement it?
These issues are discussed in the attached position paper.
Jacinta Allen said growth was to be celebrated. Our Premier clearly does not understand that there are limits to growth. Growth is an unstable state – it is not possible to keep growing forever – there are limits and sooner or later there will be the inevitable correction.
Most people understand this instinctively but it was also the subject of the first report to the Club of Rome in 1972, the findings of which were that the Earth’s resources were limited, that the demands on the planet’s resources and natural systems caused by population and economic growth could not be sustained and if maintained would result in global decline this century.
Limits to growth projections have been reviewed on numerous occasions. In 2008 Dr Graham Turner (CSIRO) reviewed the modelling and projections and concluded
The world is tracking the Limits to Growth ‘business as usual’ scenario which will lead to ecological and economic collapse (possibly from 2020 onwards)
Australian “Future Dilemmas” are also playing out with conflicting challenges over the coming decades in labour, fuel and energy, water, land, food, emissions, infrastructure demanding a range of responses but technology and marginal change are not likely to be enough (or may even make it worse).
The implications are profound but need to be overlaid with the impact of climate change and global warming. Growth today is made possible by mining the natural resources on this planet – our soils, forests, fisheries, fresh water and so on to the point where, as Turner noted they will collapse and we are seeing evidence of this today. We are already in the midst of the planet’s sixth greatest mass extinction event – caused by one species, homo sapiens and the rate of extinction is increasing, but despite constant warnings over many decades these projections continue to fall on deaf ears, particularly policy makers and politicians.
Limiting growth and reversing it must be one of the guiding principles in government policy, particularly in city and transport planning. Ultimately this will be forced on government whether they like it or not, but the correction required will grow as governments continue to pursue business as usual. The sooner this is understood and acted on the better.
Much of the freight carried in and out of Melbourne and throughout Victoria generally was once carried by rail. Most freight traffic today is transported by road, despite the fact that rail is more efficient from an energy perspective and generates significantly fewer greenhouse emissions per tonne km. Estimated reductions vary considerably but according to some researchers can be up to 16 times less than road freight per Tkm travelled (VAGO Effectiveness of rail freight support programs, tabled 27 June 2023).
The attached submission Rail Futures Institute Submission to Review of the National Freight and Supply Chain Strategy by Rail Futures Institute (RFI) to review the national rail and supply chain strategy provides a number of recommendations to address this challenge. Whilst recommendations proposed in the RFI submission do not include a financial analysis/business case it is likely that the return on investment for projects in this submission would be high and implemented relatively quickly and provide a quick return on investment. On this basis investment risk based on a business as usual scenario is likely to be low.
The question that must be asked is whether these measures will be sufficient on their own to arrest the continuing decline of freight on rail, a trend that started many decades ago – not only in Victoria but throughout much of the world and continues today.
Freight is a service industry where service needs such as convenience, reliability, marketing and other customer service issues as well as cost are critical. Whilst much of the infrastructure required to support rail freight has been severely neglected, ie poorly maintained and in urgent need of upgrading or renewal, there are many factors which have contributed to the decline in rail freight.
Institutional and political factors are also important. The current system has given road freight favoured treatment by government for many years putting rail freight at a significant disadvantage. This is reflected in rules, regulations and operating practices, procedures, standards and so on. These must be reviewed and redesigned or replaced in a way that promotes rail as the favoured freight carrier.
The system also includes subsidies and economic concessions, many of which are described as “externalities”, costs which road freight avoids paying or contributes very little but must pay to enable rail to compete on an equal footing. These include
impact on road safety and trauma
cost of roads and other supporting infrastructure including road maintenance
air/noise/water pollution and health/amenity impacts
nature and landscape impacts
upstream and downstream impacts
traffic congestion.
All of these issues must be addressed if rail freight potential is to be achieved but the problems are systemic, so resolving them requires a systems based approach in which there will be no simple single fix solutions.
It is argued this requires a review of the freight industry as a system, unpack it and identify levers that can be used to change the system in a way that increases rail’s modal share. There are many leavers that can be used for this purpose with varying degrees of effectiveness. It is argued the most powerful of these is the mindset or paradigm out of which the system is designed and operates. From this come system goals, information flows, feedback loops, stocks, flows and everything else that drives the system.
The starting point must therefore be a change in government mindset, a mindset that must mandate rail freight as top priority and a key element in its emission reduction program supported by goals, power structure, culture, rules (incentives, punishments, constraints), information flow, feedback loops, subsidies, taxes, standards and so on. This must be reflected in government policies and requires a freight plan with implementation strategies to make it happen.
Fortunately there are indications the government mindset may be changing. The latest State government announcement 10th Oct 2023 of “A record-breaking trial run for the longest intermodal freight train will pave the way for regular, more efficient services between Merbein and the Port of Melbourne”Quoting Minister for Ports and Freight Melissa Horne “We’re laying the groundwork now for this and other services to grow as part of our long-term strategy and commitment to move more freight by rail and reduce the number of trucks on roads.’’
This is a promising start but is only the beginning and far more fundamental and far-reaching changes are required. There is also growing pressure for all modes of travel and transport, including rail to rapidly reduce greenhouse emissions. This reinforces the need for a freight plan for the industry as a whole for the immediate, short and longer term. It must also be a plan that anticipates a rapidly changing world and future scenarios that have been discussed in an earlier blog and must be planned for.
Whilst building new infrastructure is important for the development of a modern transportation system, most of the critical work required to develop, operate, maintain and manage it is relatively mundane. It requires addressing many service issues, maintenance, safety, system efficiency including providing priority on roads for buses and trams, network design, timetabling, service integration and more.
All require a systems based approach but none are monumental in appearance and the impact is ultimately reflected in service delivery. All of this must be consistent with a vision that achieves social, economic and environmental goals and a plan to achieve them based on good governance and standards of international best practice.
Unfortunately transport planning and investment has become politicised. The focus today is on monumental works designed to suit political agendas which provide opportunities for political aggrandisement, designed to win votes, particularly in marginal electorates, which increasingly comes at the expense of essential work required to operate, maintain and manage the transport system.
This change in focus has been evident for many years but is becoming increasingly apparent, and comes at great cost. This is reflected in articles by Patrick Hatch for The Age and other reports but the issues are diverse. They include poor maintenance of rail lines, country roads and other infrastructure which impact the delivery of passenger services and freight.
Shortfalls in maintenance funding on the standard gauge rail between Melbourne and Albury for example will seriously degrade passenger services on this line, but there are other examples. Lack of attention to service issues has resulted in declining patronage and cost recovery for all public transport services – particularly buses.
The neglect of safety issues on our roads has resulted in increased trauma (up 18%, the highest in fifteen years) and reduced mobility for school children, students and many who are socially/economically disadvantaged. This is reflected in increased school chauffeuring (Australian children are the most chauffeured in the world – over 80% of primary and 55% of secondary school students) and resulted in a range of social (particularly health), economic and environmental costs.
Low participation rates for active transport are the result of poor city planning and a failure to provide a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists on roads. Transport emissions continue to rise reflecting the absence of a proper plan to meet greenhouse emission targets for transport generally within the state.
These are only some of the critical issues that need to be addressed and given top priority. There are many more, but they do not require conspicuous or monumental works. Like most transport issues they are not solved by simply throwing a lot money at them. They usually require a systems based approach, with a range of measures, many of which require funding, but often accompanied by organisation/behaviour change and regulatory or other measures supported by sophisticated implementation strategies to make it happen. They also demand specialist skills/expertise, financial prudence and high standards of governance.
None of these issues are unique to Melbourne or Victoria generally. They have been addressed by other cities and there are opportunities to learn from them and apply the lessons learnt here, particularly from cities that have become recognised as models of excellence.
What is required is a new government mindset driven by a willingness to learn from other cities, use this to set new priorities to improve the functioning of our transport system, address numerous failings and create a vision for the future. This must be one that anticipates the numerous threats and challenges our city and state faces in the future and provide a pathway to navigate them. But it must also recognise the imperative to make the system we have today effective and efficient, to aim for world best practice now so it can provide a sound basis on which to build for the future, recognising that this must be carried out in the most cost effective manner whilst meeting the social and community obligations of the entire community.
This is a complex challenge and requires a good understanding of the transport system, how it works and the expertise to make it happen at every level. This requires expert frank and fearless expert advice which has traditionally been provided to government by its civil service.
Unfortunately much of this expertise has been lost or outsourced, and often no longer provided in the frank and fearless manner that was once expected. The cost of poor policy and decision making is profound and has implications for the entire community. It can be seen in issues noted above ie the rising cost of road trauma and loss of patronage and freight on our rail lines, the damage to roads caused by heavy trucks carrying freight that should be carried by rail, the health impacts of pollution. It is reflected in the quality of delivery and cost overruns for major infrastructure projects. It is also reflected in the cost of car dependency more generally and the impact it has had on city development (suburban sprawl etc). But most importantly it has left policy planning in a vacuum – without any realistic vision for the future including challenges that must be faced and a pathway to address them.
These shortcomings were immediately obvious to Prof Marco te Brommelstroet, Chair of Urban Mobility at the University of Amsterdam, when he visited Melbourne recently. His concerns, reported by Patrick Hatch (The Age 14 September) “we need a conversation, not about infrastructure, transport and mobility but about the cost of cars dominating our city, for the environment, for society and especially for children”. Further, “that every child should have the right to public space, to roam, to be autonomous and the freedom to travel to school by themselves. He added “that something is going terribly wrong with young people’s mental health” and he believes designing cities to encourage connection to other people is part of the solution.
The impact of car dependency has been discussed for decades. Reducing it was once a priority and reflected in some of the earliest transport plans for Melbourne but it seems this goal is no longer of interest to politicians and paid lip service at best. But this will come back to haunt us as environmental pressures grow and force people to travel less often and more efficiently over shorter distances. Meaningful progress is possible and could be achieved relatively quickly but it requires a new mindset, particularly on the part of politicians and institutional change, with a willingness to learn lessons from international best practice and apply them here. But most importantly it requires a commitment to take the politics out of transport policy and planning and delegate it to experts with a new vision and priorities that reflect the interests of the broader community.
It seems that despite this warning (Shane Wright, The Age August 21) and a cascade of others supported by dramatic evidence of global warming and climate change (extreme weather, firestorms, loss of biodiversity and species loss), the impact this is having on communities and their ability to maintain a liveable existence, the need for radical change in city and transport planning continues to fall on deaf ears.
Mitigation efforts to-date and planned for the future remain superficial and will barely make a difference and the loss of Australia’s triple A rating by the end of the decade will be the least of our concerns.
It should be obvious to a growing number of people that the rate of change is increasing and turning this situation around is mission impossible. Whilst it is still possible to slow the warming process humanity has no choice but to adapt and the sooner governments at all levels start planning accordingly the better for everyone.
There is no use pretending that electric cars, solar and other forms of “green” energy and technology will solve our problems. They have made little difference to-date and emissions are still rising at an exponential rate. Smart use of technology will help if it facilitates behavioural change but will not stop the warming process and in this respect Australia is particularly vulnerable.
As we have noted on numerous occasions, adaption will require a radical change in behaviour supported by very different expectations and aspirations to those that exist today and choices made in the future.
Humanity will be forced to use/consume less of everything – including travel and operate within an economy in which growth rapidly becomes negative and supports fewer and fewer people. In some parts of the world this is already happening but the scale will rapidly increase. These conclusions were very clear decades ago, and reflected in the Club of Rome’s first report on Limits to Growth in 1972 even before concerns of global warming were factored in.
TfM has presented numerous strategies since it was established more than ten years ago to respond to this challenge. All we can do now is repeat them, encourage government to listen, take them seriously and act accordingly. The problem is not cost but lack of will and mindset to make the commitment.
The proposed acquisition of the Eastern freeway toll road by Transurban has raised serious concerns which are now the subject of a formal enquiry by the ACCC. TfM, T4e and VTAG have welcomed this enquiry and responded by making formal submissions three of which are attached.
The ACCC’s concerns relate essentially to potentially anti-competitive outcomes, confining its inquiry to four key questions as follows:
“The ACCC is concerned that the proposed acquisition may substantially lessen competition for concessions to construct, own and/or operate toll roads in Victoria.”
“The ACCC is considering whether Transurban has incumbency advantages from holding toll road concessions, and the extent to which the proposed acquisition could increase those incumbency advantages…..”
“The ACCC is also concerned that the proposed acquisition may prevent the emergence of a key rival to Transurban for future toll road concessions…..”
“The ACCC is also considering the extent to which the Victorian Government can constrain Transurban in future toll road concession sale processes.”
However the implications are much broader and raise issues of governance and proper process. These are discussed in VTAG and T4e submissions attached.
As noted in the first VTAG submission it also raises serious questions about the tolling model itself and the extent to which the proposed acquisition would perpetuate current concerns.
“At a Transport Technology World Congress at the World Trade Centre in 2016, Singaporean Managers hearing Transurban present at a Congress, examined the data presented on toll revenues v. expenditure. They were stunned that Victoria allowed this model, astounded that toll revenue was not going into State revenues to fund hospitals, schools, railways and housing and other needed infrastructure – as they would in Singapore. They were adamant Victoria was being short-changed and that their Land Transport Authority (LTA) and political leadership would not countenance such a private sector funding model in Singapore to public detriment! They could not comprehend a State leadership so lacking in financial acumen and consideration of the public interest!”
These issues should be understood by the Victorian community and have implications for all Victorians.
The report by The Age on 6th June about concerns that the process used for awarding the government contract for a new ticketing system is flawed is a concern, particularly given problems experienced with the ticketing system in the past. It is critical that government gets it right this time but is a new ticketing system such a high priority at a time when concerns are being raised about rapidly rising and unsustainable government debt?
Whilst there are problems with the existing system, the first question that should be asked is how serious are they, can they be fixed easily, if so how quickly and at what cost. Is it worth getting a new ticketing system and all the teething problems it would entail if the problems with the existing system can be fixed quickly at relatively little cost? That is the “do nothing” base case and must be used as the basis for ranking alternative options.
The second question that must be asked is how does this project rank with competing needs – other measures required to improve transport outcomes for the public transport system as a whole?
In the table provided in my blog dated 12/5/23, ticketing ranked 17th in terms of customer service priorities for public transport based on research by Prof Graham Currie which he presented at our annual forum in 2018. If one casts a wider net, by including priorities for other travel and transport modes including active transport, road safety and the imperative to reduce greenhouse emissions the ranking for a new ticket system would fall even further. So where is the business case that justifies funding for a new ticketing system and its ranking above other areas of need?
Whilst there have been some concerns about the need to improve the ticketing system, up until now there has been no urgency to fix it, so what has changed to make this a top priority and rush the process? Projects like this need careful planning. The user specification needs to be well thought out to ensure it delivers what we need. The premier is impressed with a system that uses only bankcard or a smart phone but forgets that there are many people who don’t have either of these and that provision must also be made for special tickets for concession card holders. Failure to provide for these would discriminate against people who are poor or socially disadvantaged.
The evaluation process for any contract must be carried out according to well established guidelines and procedures. The process must be transparent and open to scrutiny. It is normal practice to accept the lowest conforming tender. Government would require very good reasons to accept the highest bid, which in this case is almost double the lowest tender. Concerns have been raised about the experience of the successful tenderer Conduit, which is better known for its hardware than whole integrated systems, particularly when it is software issues that often end up becoming the most difficult to resolve.
The most likely conclusion one can draw from this situation is that the ticketing contract is another politically inspired project that will deliver a marginal improvement in public transport service outcomes at best, that the process appears to have been rushed and lacks transparency.
The public has a right to know more about the basis on which this contract has been awarded and how the government can justify awarding it to the highest tenderer. But even more important, the government needs to explain why a new ticketing system ranks ahead of other areas of far greater need, particularly when it ranks only 17th in terms of customer service priorities.
Adherence to proper process by government is critical. Without this we can expect more funds spent on projects that deliver minimal or suboptimal outcomes at best. If this project is rushed with insufficient planning it risks significant cost overruns, similar to what has occurred with many other major government projects today. If the vast sums of money spent on our transport system over the last decade had been invested wisely it would have generated far better transport outcomes than exist today. Some would argue that it would have been sufficient to provide Melbourne with a world class public transport system, a system that would have serviced the entire city – a far cry from what we have today.
“Victoria has the worst debt burden of 17 similar states across the world, and credit agencies warn it is likely to deteriorate unless tough decisions are made to cut infrastructure spending and raise more taxes” …..
“Brendan Coates, of the Grattan Institute, said the government continued to face tough choices, and urged it to review the viability of the Suburban Rail Loop, the only project not subject to the federal review of infrastructure spending”. Sumeyya Ilanbey State political reporter for The Age May 25.
None of the this should come as a surprise. The re-emergence of tough financial times has been predicted for many years and governments, corporations and individuals with high levels of debt will always be vulnerable. Unfortunately this is only the beginning. Much harder times are forecast for Australia and the global economy later this year and next, which some economists predict will result in a severe economic downturn that could rival the GFC or even the Great Depression. The warning signs were clear enough so why was government not listening and was the high level of debt really necessary in the first place?
These were issues that concerned TFM when it was established more than ten years ago, when the State government changed its transport investment priorities to major infrastructure projects. Spending on capital works has ballooned since and has become the main source of Victoria’s state government debt.
Government maintains this “investment” is necessary to promote jobs and economic growth but this is a very weak argument. Capital works of this nature are not labour intensive and the jobs multiplier effect is relatively low. If government was serious about creating jobs there are far more effective ways to do this in areas of real need, particularly in the government and community services sector.
But more importantly we challenge the notion that investment in new infrastructure, particularly large, mega projects is a sound investment in the first place. This was the subject of my first blog in 17/8/20 and concerns raised in it have been repeated regularly since. The business case for all projects in the “Big Build”, particularly the Suburban Rail Loop is weak and our advice is to terminate the lot, focus instead on actions that will generate measurable benefits quickly at minimal cost – what we call low hanging fruit of which there are many, maximise the use and effectiveness of existing infrastructure before building new and apply lessons that can be learnt from international best practice.
Sumeyya Ilanbey reported AMP Capital chief economist Shane Oliver saying that “if state debt continued to grow as projected, Victorians would end up paying the price with higher taxes in the near future and diminished government services”. We agree but it will also result in significant job losses and that is a high price to pay for what is largely the result of a failure in governance and proper process.
Safety has always been a critical issue for pedestrians and is the main reason why cycling numbers are so low in Australia. Whilst there has been a major improvement in road safety over recent decades (peaking in 1970 with 3798 deaths in Victoria alone), progress during the last decade has stagnated and roads remain deadly, particularly for the elderly, the handicapped such as those with impaired vision or hearing, the young, pedestrians and cyclists. The increase in Victoria’s road deaths in the year to 31 March by an additional 23 to 259, an increase of 9.7%, is a major concern and comes at significant cost to the community.
In a summary report by the Australian Automobile Association (AAA) in 2017 it was estimated that the cost of road trauma nation wide for the 2015 calendar year was $29.7 billion, the economic cost of each road fatality was $4.34 million and the cost per hospitalisation caused by road injury was $239,000. These figures probably are an understatement, particularly in cases of trauma that result in life long pain and suffering. Despite substantial reductions since 1970 road trauma remains a major cost to society. Further, the complex nature of accident protection is such that it requires constant vigilance to address changes in the transport environment and emerging threats to road safety, and continual maintenance and development of strategies and programs to keep these in check. It also requires a culture of continual improvement to reduce it. Without this there is a risk that the incidence and cost of road trauma can easily grow again. In this respect it is important to understand the history.
The situation in the 1970’s had become so bad that it demanded fundamental system change but there were no magic fix solutions. It required a multi facetted approach to change driver behaviour, improve vehicle and road infrastructure design, policing and public education. The measures included vehicle safety design enhancements (crumple design etc, introduction of seat belts), safety helmets for cyclists and motor cyclists, initiatives against drink driving, improved enforcement technology, improved roads, and the introduction of public safety campaigns. But probably the most important factor was a change in mindset at a political and institutional level. Where as today there exists a high degree of awareness of road safety, in the days of an emerging new technology in the transport industry safety matters had not been a consideration. The change in mindset was reflected by the establishment of the Transport Accident Commission in 1987 which had the reduction of the incidence and cost of road accidents as one of its primary objectives, and emulation of the Swedish model “Vision Zero” as its ultimate goal. This approach was supported by the Monash Accident Research Centre and quickly enabled Victoria to become the leading State in Australia for road safety.
But gains in this area require continuing political support and can be quickly undermined by complacency and inappropriate government policy. This occurred during the term of the Kennett government when the emphasis on road safety declined and speed limits were lifted on many main roads. Unsurprisingly the trend in road trauma quickly reversed. There is concern that a similar situation is occurring today, and that this is being driven by economic pressures and changing government philosophies and priorities.
Prevention strategies of any kind invariably produce far better outcomes than those that focus on the “cure”. This certainly applies to road trauma. Public health and safety campaigns, community education, effective policing and infrastructure improvements all play a critical role in reducing road accidents, but these are not always vote winners and are easily cut, particularly during times of economic hardship – a situation that is becoming increasingly apparent today.
Government city planning and economic development strategies are not helping either. Both promote continuing expansion of Melbourne and regional cities which in turn creates the need for more car-based travel over longer distances and at greater speed. All of these create the potential for more accidents and more serious accidents. This concern is supported by the fact that deaths from motor accidents are over represented in rural areas by a large factor where higher travel speeds over longer distances dominate. The risk of dying on country roads in 2017 was five times greater than Melbourne. In that year road deaths in rural Victoria (109) outnumbered deaths in Melbourne (103). This is one of a number of indicators that demonstrate that strategies to promote economic growth in Melbourne come at a high cost.
The need to lower speeds in suburban streets has been recognised for a long time. A 50 kph default speed limit was introduced in built up areas in Victoria in January 2001 but there has been pressure to reduce this further to 40 and ultimately 30kph, particularly for suburban streets. Paris has followed the example of a growing number of French and other European cities and towns by introducing a 30kph for the entire city with the exclusion of a small number of main roads that connect Paris to other cities. Whilst the principal aim of this strategy was to reduce vehicle emissions by getting people out of their cars and use public transport, walking or cycling or travel less it will deliver a significant reduction in road trauma.
Governments should also promote safer modes of travel such as public transport for more trips instead of the motor car and encourage people to travel less and at lower speeds as part of its safety campaign. This would complement environmental strategies designed to reduce greenhouse emissions.
There is also a need to provide greater protection for vulnerable road users; pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists are 34 more times likely to be injured than the occupant of a motor car and 4.5 times more likely to die. Safety concerns are also being raised about the risk quiet cars, particularly EV’s pose for vision or hearing impaired pedestrians. There are many ways in which roads can be made safer for this cohort, many at very little cost, but despite the obvious benefits, progress to-date has been slow and inadequate.
The TAC is well abreast of all the above but its programs need government funding supported by a mindset and priorities that Vision Zero is the only acceptable target, rejecting any view that death on our roads is an inevitable consequence of economic development. Any budget cuts to road safety will compromise these objectives and be a false economy. Government must also reflect road safety goals in strategies for other portfolios, not just transport but also environment, public health, city planning and development and be a lever that helps provide a transition to a more sustainable future.
The State government’s media release dated 31st March 2023 stated “The Andrews government is transforming the way Victorians travel across the State, with the regional fare cap now in effect to make regional public transport fares fair.” Quoting the Minister for Public Transport
“We’re delivering for all Victorians – making public transport more affordable and accessible to passengers in every corner of our state to ensure they can get where they need to go” and
“The regional fare cap will transform the way Victorians travel – and will also provide a huge benefit to regional tourism and businesses.”
The claims made by government in this situation are astonishing to say the least and are not supported by a business case, but it raises the broader issue of pricing government services, how these services are paid for and by whom.
Transport pricing is an important element in a transport plan. It can be used to recover the cost of services provided by government such as travel on public transport or access/use of transport infrastructure such as roads, rail tracks and so on. This may include direct costs associated with provision and maintenance of infrastructure, or related costs such as policing, compliance, supervision, administration and trauma from traffic accidents. These services have to be paid for one way or another and are to a large extent charged on a user pays basis.
Transport pricing is also used to promote activity that supports government policy or other political purposes. Discounted or even free travel on public transport has been used to support community service obligations for poor or underprivileged people. It has also been used to change travel patterns such as encouraging people to travel in more efficient vehicles or in vehicles which have a higher safety rating, to change travel behaviour or support specific transport or commercial activity.
These are complex issues and implications and impacts need to be well understood in social, economic and environment terms. The price and method/mechanism used must be appropriate to ensure it achieves the desired outcomes and are realised equitably or as part of a community service obligation and not abused by those in privileged positions who are best able to exploit them.
For example short trips in/out and within the Melbourne CBD were always the most lucrative travel sector for Melbourne trams and provided a cross-subsidy for poorly patronised routes, particularly those most remote from the CBD. The decision to make short trips free made little difference to patronage for a fare that most people were happy to pay. The main issue as far as travellers were concerned in this situation was service frequency and convenience – not price and the decision to make these fares free created a substantial revenue shortfall that had to be met by other means.
Similar thinking should be applied to the decision to reduce fares on country train services. People will use the train if it meets their travel needs, but these vary depending on the trip and people’s circumstances. There are many factors that affect modal choice which are highlighted in the table below. Whilst this has been compiled for metropolitan public transport services, including buses, most have application for country train services.
Public Transport Customer Service Issues
Ref charts provided by Prof Graham Currie summarized roughly in tabular form below
Service IssueGeneral Ranking
PT Issue Importance
PT Issue Importance(on scale of 3.5-6.5)Note: all scored between 6.4 – 5.6)
PT Issue Performance(on scale of 3.5-6.5)
1
Safe at night
6.4 Highest
4.5 Worst – v poor
2
Reliability
6.3 Second highest
5.2 poor
3
Frequency
6.25
5.0 poor
4
Safe during day
6.4
5.4
5
PT available where and when needed
6.1
5.0 poor
6
Deal with disruptions quickly
6.2
4.5 V poor
7
Get to stops/stations
8
Quality of service
6.0
4.5 V poor
9
Make connections
6.0
5.0 poor
10
Available on weekends
6.2
11
Get information about PT
12
Disruptions don’t happen often
6.0
4.8 Very poor
13
Meet costs
5.9
5.0 poor
14
Information to plan journey
6.0
15
People I care for can use it safely
6.2
4.6 Poor
16
Available at night
5.8
17
Ease of buying/using a ticket
6.1
18
Over crowding
5.9
19
Staff courteous and friendly
20
Physical access
5.8
21
Can make trips to new places on PT
22
Travel time compared to car
5.7
4.3 V poor
The extent to which cheaper fares for regional services will influence travel behaviour and who would benefit is not clear, but in many situations it is likely to be marginal at best. People will not use public transport if it does not take them where they want to go when they want to go, if the journey is inconvenient, uncomfortable and takes too long. People wishing to make long trips will expect guaranteed seating on a train and on a train service that is not replaced by buses. They will also expect toilets, buffet catering, and clean, well maintained carriages with air conditioning. Most people making these trips from Melbourne will also use the suburban public transport system to access the regional network.
Cheap fares for heavily patronised commuter travel to and from regional cities such as Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, and the La Trobe Valley will only compound overcrowding that already exists during peak travel time and create pressure to provide more trains. At the very least fares should be priced in a way that encourages travellers to use less well patronised services and pay a premium during peak travel time when trains are full. This approach is common in Europe. Discounts are also available for people who book in advance. Discounted off peak fares were also adopted in earlier times for rail travel in Victoria.
Public transport operates in a very competitive market, one that is dominated by the private car which, for most trips wins on service and convenience not price. The extent to which cheap railway fares will encourage greater access to regional centres and promote regional development is therefore problematic. It is likely that the decision to cut fares will result in a significant loss of revenue that will have to be recovered from other sources and outcomes promoted by government will not be realised. Reduced fares will not improve network coverage or the quality of service, make it more accessible, or transform the way people travel.
There may be some benefit to tourist operators and regional business but the impact is likely to be small. If government is serious about using V/Line services to promote regional businesses the starting point would be to improve the quality of service, not just for regional services but also the suburban network that provides access to it by addressing service issues listed in the table above.
This also raises the question whether promoting more regional growth and development is a sustainable policy in the first place. Most regional centres face significant environmental challenges, particularly adequate water supply, which will become increasingly critical as global warming increases and rainfall in south eastern Australia declines in the future. It will also put pressure on physical and community infrastructure and services and housing which have consistently failed to keep pace with population growth, particularly in regional centres and is likely to do so in the future. The cost of providing this is often overlooked but will become increasingly problematic as economic conditions and environmental factors become more challenging.
Whilst service issues tend to dominate personal travel behaviour in many situations price will be an important factor and a legitimate tool for influencing travel behaviour in a way that promotes government policy. It is already used in many forms, such as traffic fines to encourage compliance with road laws. Suburban rail fares have also been structured to promote urban growth and development. Motor vehicle registration charges have been used to encourage people to drive newer and smaller more fuel-efficient motor vehicles. In these situations the objectives are clear and pricing mechanisms are designed to achieve them.
Transport pricing has the potential to distort the transport and travel market and can be used to promote good policy outcomes, but if it is poorly designed or used for purely political purposes it invariably ends up being exploited by a small minority at significant cost to the broader community. In these situations the impact can be far reaching and difficult if not impossible to reverse.
For example, subsidising road freight and motorists by failing to pass on the full cost of road transport has encouraged the transport of more freight on roads instead of rail and made it easier to travel by car but it has created a large number of cost “externalities”. The loss of freight from an efficient carrier (rail) to a far less efficient carrier (truck) has reduced the viability of the rail freight business and is now responsible for most of the wear and tear of the road infrastructure.
It has also promoted the least efficient and most costly mode of personal travel – the motor car. The cost is not confined to the purchase price and operating cost of the vehicles but includes the demands it makes on physical infrastructure and land use which has encouraged people to drive longer distances, travel more often, resulting in more urban sprawl. This in turn has increased the pressure to travel faster, creating political pressure to build even more road infrastructure, including motorways, resulting in more road accidents, pollution, noise and other social, economic and environmental impacts. The cost of other infrastructure such as electricity, water, drainage, social infrastructure and community services also increase.
The end result has been a city development trajectory that is unsustainable and will come under increasing pressure as environmental factors intensify.
Appropriate pricing can be introduced, supported by other measures to help reverse this trend, but these must be well designed to achieve clearly defined outcomes. For personal travel the objective must be to encourage people to travel less, less often, more efficiently, and more safely in a way that places less demand on road infrastructure. This rationale applies to both public and private transport.
Similar objectives should apply for freight; to transport less, over shorter distances and more efficiently in a way that is less damaging to transport infrastructure. The pressure to introduce these measures will intensify as the cost of maintaining the state’s transport infrastructure increases at a time when government finances are coming under increasing pressure. Implementing these measures will not be popular and the political cost will be high, perhaps too high for government to contemplate but sooner or later these issues will have to be addressed and it will require a well thought out strategy and a plan to make it happen.
Whilst it is important that government gets value for money under the franchise agreement for the maintenance and renewal of railway assets, proper maintenance of railway assets is critical for the delivery of a safe and reliable service that must be carried out as efficiently as possible in line with best practice. Such an outcome should be expected by a responsible government but has not been realised for many years and was the subject of a Victorian Auditor General (VAGO) report in February 2023.
Concerns about this state of affairs were raised by Dr John Stone (Melbourne University) in his report in 2016 when the franchise agreement was being renewed. In his report Stone asked:
Who is driving the capital works and major maintenance program?
Does government have a strategic vision for asset renewal and maintenance and what are the indicators of progress?
Does PTV have strong tendering and procurement skills, necessary to ensure Government aims and objectives are realised in a way that provides value for money, particularly as crucial skills were leaking to the private sector or being downsized in the Department which was likely to compromise its ability to design, implement and administer the franchise agreement?
To what extent is Metro Trains (MTM) steering maintenance and renewal programs and taking control of capital assets?
Which renewals are done under the infrastructure lease and which are under projects agreement and who drives decisions about “enhancement” and cross subsidisation?
More specific concerns were raised about higher renumeration rates provided for “project” (enhancement) works compared to essential maintenance and renewal works and the opportunity this provided for the franchisee to maximise financial returns (for shareholders) at the expense of essential maintenance.
Stone also questioned who is likely to bid against MTM in 2023 and whether this may end up becoming a private monopoly that exploits the government and Victorians as a whole. He listed five ways to protect the public interest:
Strong and public negotiation of rollover
Separate and consistent reporting of expenditure
Shows maintenance and renewal linked to long term outcomes
Strengthen public sector skills.
We would add a further concern about the performance targets set by government for the franchisee which we believe are far too low and well short of world best practice. This has implications for government as well ie to provide the environment in which higher performance standards can be achieved by the franchisee.
Seven years later, railway maintenance has become the subject of a Victorian Auditor General (VAGO) report which was tabled in February 2023. Key findings from the report for the franchise period 2017-2022 were as follows:
The Department has not assessed whether Metro is optimising asset costs and if the current maintenance and renewal approach will sustain asset performance in the long term
The Department does not have a long term strategy for its infrastructure and technology assets or
Have an effective way to measure asset performance and asses Metro’s work.
Further, the Department needs this information to ensure the current agreement and any future contracts deliver value for money. VAGO provided 10 recommendations including
5 about how assessing how railway assets perform
3 about better guiding how Metro plans maintenance and renewal work
2 about overseeing the works Metro delivers
The Department has agreed to implement eight of these by 2026 at the latest, but serious questions remain. VAGO has echoed concerns voiced by Stone seven years earlier, including skills and expertise to establish reporting/recording data systems etc to measure asset performance and assess Metro’s work.
All of these concerns are of fundamental importance and must be addressed, including the need to raise benchmark standards, but the focus must be broadened. A maintenance plan must be part of an integrated transport plan for which railways are only part. It must also be updated based on future scenarios for which business as usual projections will no longer be appropriate, reflecting changes in travel and transport needs in a rapidly changing world. This new world will demand a total rethink of the transport paradigm and infrastructure to support it as discussed at our forums over the last three years, a world that will demand
rapid improvement in efficiency and reduction in greenhouse emissions
increased energy and material constraints of all kinds
a more frugal and constrained approach by government at all levels as economic and financial pressures increase and the ability of governments to fund essential services and capital and maintenance works becomes increasingly constrained.
The most likely scenario will not be one of endless growth but short term growth followed by decline, including the decline in demand for services of all kinds including transport with implications for supporting infrastructure and the embodied energy and emissions to provide, maintain and renew it. This will drive radical changes in transport and travel patterns accompanied by mode shifts in favour of more energy efficient and lower emission modes. It will demand the realisation of efficiency potential: no more empty buses, trams and trains – they must be well patronised to justify emission reduction targets at a time when the capacity of government to finance these services becomes increasingly stressed.
Under this scenario the economic life of all asset classes as well as standards to maintain them must be revised to ensure efficiency improvements and emission reductions are realised. Under this scenario it is inevitable that much of the existing transport infrastructure, including freeways will be downsized or become stranded assets and redeveloped for other purposes.
Infrastructure maintenance and renewal standards must also be reviewed to reflect changing environmental impacts such as extreme weather, rising sea levels etc and improve service delivery targets which are already well below those expected from world best practice.
In summary the VAGO report highlights significant shortcomings in the way railway infrastructure is carried out under the franchise agreement but terms of reference are relatively narrow
confined to infrastructure that supports railway operations rather than the transport system as a whole
it is silent on issues raised by Stone, including the cost of the franchise model, whether it is suitable and will ever deliver optimal outcomes for Victorians
its recommendations are based on a business as usual scenario for the future, a scenario which is totally unrealistic. Whilst principles outlined in the report remain valid they must be modified to reflect a rapidly changing environment which will demand a new transport paradigm.
It is argued that all of the above are important and require more detailed investigation. The extent to which governments and policy makers are prepared to respond is not clear, but sooner or later economic and environmental pressures will force a change in thinking. How long this takes is an open question but it may happen sooner than most policy makers and their political masters think.
CANBERRA, AUSTRALIA - MAR 25, 2016: Interior view of the House of Representatives in Parliament House, Canberra, Australia
It is clear our transport problems are increasing. The Age has stated we need more trains. Others have suggested we need a European style public transport system. We also need a system that responds to our growing environmental crisis. All of these are simplistic band aid responses to a growing problem that is rapidly becoming unsustainable. The reality is there are no simple single fix solutions, but the crisis we are facing is not on the roads or train tracks, it is the lack of ideas and a plan on how to address it.
This was the conclusion we arrived at when TfM was formed nearly ten years ago and was the subject of our first forum in 2013. Put simply, our governments have failed to learn lessons from cities that have become models of international best practice; cities that have confronted similar problems and apply these lessons here. More fundamentally, successive governments have failed to understand transport itself and how it functions as a service industry. Governments continue to see “solutions” in terms of infrastructure, arguing we don’t have enough of it. Our State government continues to spend huge sums of money on building more, whilst neglecting service and institutional issues that must be addressed if we are to achieve better transport outcomes.
TfM has discussed these issues at our forums and provided advice on how they can be addressed. They are also addressed in our Charter. We have asked “Where is the Plan”, outlined actions to address governance issues, practical measures to improve public transport and transport more generally, provided advice on the future we must plan for and strategic responses to the challenges we face in the future. Our focus has been on service issues that determine the way people and businesses travel and transport goods and services, on better management and more efficient utilisation of existing infrastructure and ensuring infrastructure investment is made in areas of real need. The cost of these responses is modest compared to the massive spending on transport infrastructure today.
Service issues continue to dominate Victoria’s transport system. Many of the problems are a direct result of disruption caused by the government’s Big Build infrastructure program. Train services are regularly disrupted by level crossing works, requiring substitute buses which significantly add to travel time and make them far less convenient for travellers. This degradation in service results in loss of patronage which is very difficult to recover and more traffic on the roads. It is much easier to get new passengers than get back old travellers. Services continue to be disrupted by maintenance (as well as construction) operations – many of which used to be carried out at night in a way that did not disrupt services.
Construction activities on road and building projects is also resulting in significant disruption which is adding to congestion and traffic pollution. The impact is reflected in growing health problems as well as increasing greenhouse emissions. Service quality should be the driver for all transport planning, particularly for personal travel. There are many dimensions to this and they need to be understood and addressed. This focus must apply to all travel modes, including active transport and will become increasingly critical in the future if we are to wean people off high emission vehicles onto low or close to zero emission modes such as walking and cycling.
Increasing travel demands are also fuelled by city planning policies and government policies at a state and federal level that continue to promote growth and hyper mobility. Whilst “solutions” should be straight forward they are politically complex and challenging and require a radical change of mindset – a change that is unlikely to happen soon unless there is significant political pressure on governments to do so.
