Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

Where is Werribee’s Super City ?

Where is Werribee’s Super City? This was the question asked by The Age’s city reporter Rachel Dexter. But the more important question must be: do we need a super city at Werribee in the first place and if one was built what would be its future?

In our recent submission to the State Government, which was the subject of a recent blog, TfM outlined future scenarios for Melbourne for the medium to longer term.

The scenarios are grim, particularly  for the western suburbs which will become increasingly unliveable heat islands.  The western suburbs are the hottest and driest part of Melbourne. Extensive paving of this area compounds this problem and the challenge of establishing shade trees. As noted in our submission, even if it were possible to plant trees, roots would cause extensive and widespread damage to housing structures.

Scientists tell us the race to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, even 2 degrees has now been lost and the best we can hope for is 3 degrees – a global average which for Australia will be an unliveable 4 degrees. But a global rise of 3 degrees will be only temporary and will escalate once the planet becomes locked into an irreversible hothouse trajectory. These new suburbs face a bleak future and will end up becoming unliveable “dead” zones where no one lives – not a sound case for establishing a “super city”.

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

Hydrogen Trucks Promise a Quieter Garbage Run?

In a recent article by Patrick Hatch for The Age “  The makers of Australia’s first locally designed and built hydrogen-powered truck say it will be towing cars and potentially collecting garbage this year in a rollout they believe could spur a shift away from highly polluting diesel vehicles.

Hyzon Motors says the 27-tonne truck it will unveil at its headquarters in Noble Park, in Melbourne’s south-east, on Monday is an Australian first and shows the trucking industry can go green”.

Whilst removal of diesel vehicles is important, claims that hydrogen powered trucks can go green are simply greenwash. To achieve zero emissions it is necessary to include emissions from every stage of the product life cycle. This includes the vehicle itself – to manufacture, service, maintain and dispose of at the end of its life, including supporting infrastructure such as roads as well and the power source itself – which in the case of hydrogen requires a lot of energy to produce, reticulate and so on.

A more sensible approach would be to look at ways of reducing garbage in the first place and how this can be carried out more efficiently. The first is a no brainer but government actions to reduce garbage and waste more generally have been feeble and largely ineffective. This is a complex matter and there are no simple solutions. It requires a systems based approach but so far government have not been up to the challenge even though the need for change has been recognised for decades.

One should ask why we need such large garbage trucks in the first place and why did we get rid of garbo’s. Before the large trucks were introduced, households and businesses used smaller bins that could be carried and emptied by garbos. This encouraged people to waste less. The trucks could operate in a way that enabled bins to be emptied on both sides of the street at the same time which meant fewer truck miles. They were also much quieter – mechanical emptying of large bins by modern garbage trucks is very noisy. Finally the heavy trucks used today are far more damaging to  roads, particularly suburban streets which are not designed for heavy traffic.

Like many decisions that have been made in the past on narrowly based financial cost cutting criteria, broader issues are often overlooked. Many of these have social or environmental impacts and costs that should be part of a triple bottom line evaluation process.  Whilst some of these are difficult to estimate it is obvious that the introduction of large garbage trucks has been a backward step. Removal of diesel trucks is welcomed, but their replacement with hydrogen powered vehicles will do nothing to reduce our rubbish problem – it will simply maintain business as usual and all of the problems this creates will remain unresolved.

 

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

Future Scenarios To Plan For

Understanding the future and the relevant time horizon is the starting point for any plan. Without it the plan is a waste of time. Whilst this might seem an obvious “no brainer” many government projects and city plans are based on political aspirations and a rosy future based on the most optimistic projections of business as usual, denying risks and gloomy outlooks that could sink the plan. Views that contradict this narrative are often ridiculed and labelled extreme and never included, even as worse-case scenarios. 

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

A Review of Plan Melbourne 2017-50 – “Living in the Hothouse”

A Review of Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 

 “Living in the Hot House”

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

Will Steffen

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

Managing the Transition to a Zero Emission Economy

The federal government has committed itself to a 43% reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2030 and 100% by 2050 in an attempt to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees – well short of what scientists have demanded (80% by 2030 and 100% by 2035 according to the Australian Climate Council). But even a modest target of 43% requires a plan to implement it and manage the transition.

Former Prime Minister Morrison stated that reducing greenhouse emissions would be no more difficult than responding to another Covid. Perhaps he had in mind a world where we all had solar cells on our roofs, drove electric cars, and life would proceed as normal – the good life with business as usual. Perhaps the new federal government has a similar view.        

If anyone doubted the need for a plan then look no further than the energy crisis that is gripping the European Community, UK and even the US today. The EU decarbonisation program is more advanced than Australia and has higher targets so this crisis should have been an opportunity to accelerate decarbonisation. Instead these countries have attempted, unsuccessfully, to prop up their economies by importing oil and gas from other sources. Some people have even resorted to burning firewood and waste to keep warm.  The impact on these economies has been disastrous and will almost certainly drive them into recession. It has exposed the extent to which all economies are dependent on fossil fuels and the absence of a transition plan and lack of understanding of what is required to make it work.

Reducing greenhouse emissions is not easy and costs money. Costs to business are invariably passed on to the community. Decarbonisation also requires major changes in behaviour which invariably costs money too. Government can assist businesses and the community to make the transition but this also costs money and will become increasingly difficult when the economy enters a difficult period with rising interest rates, other inflationary and cost of living pressures, stagnating wages and high debt levels.

Unfortunately the cost of adaption will not be shared equally and will invariably fall most heavily on those least able to adapt – the most socially and economically disadvantaged. This applies to transport, particularly for people who are car dependent. There are however opportunities for people to achieve substantial cost savings by making greater use of public transport or walking or cycling for more trips, but it is up to State and local governments to create the conditions which make these options more acceptable. There are many ways in which this can be done. Many of these have been outlined in our forums, papers, blogs and formal submissions to government. But we are not alone on this matter. The need to respond has been recognised by transport planners for decades but is becoming increasingly urgent.    

  

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

Shiny New Trains and Buses for Melbourne  

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

A Tunnel Vision Is Not The Answer  

As we have said on numerous occasions, public transport is a service industry that operates in a very competitive market, so the key to improving transport outcomes is to focus on improving customer service – not building more tunnels.      

Like many things, there are no magic fix solutions but we have a pretty good idea what people want from a public transport service and it pays to listen to the customers. Emily Day’s article in The Age, Wednesday 7 September titled “V/Line has a serious disconnect problem” raised concerns about the lack of wifi on regional trains, a concern shared by many readers but the readers raised other issues which VLine management and politicians should reflect on and address. The majority of respondents rated the VLine service poor.  

Some of the more general comments included

  • Trains in Australia are a joke (or “rubbish”) compared to so many other countries around the world
  • V is for “Very Ancient” Line
  • We travel “first class” which would have to be the worst “first class” anything in the world.

And more specific concerns such as

  • If your trains mostly run on time you’re definitely not on the Gippsland line. Our trains, when they run, rarely get to destination on time,
  • Service passed Geelong is chronic and has been for decades…. services still cancelled at Geelong because they can’t manage their time-table efficiently.
  • On the Bendigo line it’s a 50-50 chance that your train will be replaced by a bus
  • Wi-fi would be ideal – but in the interim, I’d settle for clean windows at least to enjoy the view!
  • Back in the 1990s, you could buy a chardonnay from the bar on the old clunker trains. I miss that.

Whilst these responses may not be a representative sample they do raise important issues that should be treated seriously and justify further investigation.  Many are the direct responsibility of VLine and are the kind of problems any smart service business would address as a matter of urgency if it wanted to stay in business.  Some of these should not cost a lot to fix. The fact that they remain a concern is a reflection of management quality and its mindset. Clearly there are service issues which are more difficult to fix. Many reflect a broader systemic problem that pervades public transport generally. They also reflect government policies and priorities and the way government spends our taxes today.

Improving customer service was the focus of TfM’s annual forum in 2019. A summary of  public transport service issues in terms of ranking and observations is provided below.          

Public Transport Customer Service Issues

Ref charts provided by Prof Graham Currie summarized roughly in tabular form below. Service issues below are listed in priority order from travellers’ perspective.

Service Issue General 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 – very 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    5.0
8 Quality of service 6.0 4.5           V poor
9 Make connections 6.0 5.0            poor
10 Available on weekends 6.2 5.5 
11 Get information about PT   5.3
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 5.2
15 People I care for can use it safely 6.2 4.6         Poor
16 Available at night 5.8 5.0
17 Ease of buying/using a ticket 6.1  5.1
18 Over crowding 5.9  
19 Staff courteous and friendly  5.8  5.1
20 Physical access 5.8 5.9 
21 Can make trips to new places on PT  5.7 5.0
22 Travel time compared to car 5.7 4.3    V poor

Source: Currie G Delbosc

A (2015) Variation In Perceptions of Urban Public Transport

Between International Cities Using Spiral Plot Analysis

TRANSPORTATION  RESEARCH RECORD

No 2538 on pages 54- 64  

Observations

Based on these surveys the most critical customer service issues listed above are also ranked lowest in terms of customer satisfaction ie 

  • safety, particularly at night
  • reliability
  • frequency

TfM has argued for a long time that an affluent first world country like Australia can afford to run a world class public transport service and should make the effort to learn from countries or cities that have established themselves as examples of world best practice.

During the early days of railway history in this State, the railways were professionally managed and delivered a service that was comparable with the best in the world. But railway management was not complacent and made regular trips abroad, to the US, UK and the rest of Europe to study international developments and ways in which these could be applied to improve local performance. There are also lessons that can be learnt from other service industries that have established themselves as models of excellence in their field.  

This should be carried out in an environment which promotes constant learning, a desire to keep improving to remain relevant and strive to achieve and maintain best practice. This should also be a matter of pride but at this stage, based on recent feedback from Emily Day’s article, there appears to be little this government should be proud of and must be demoralising for VLine and other public transport staff who have to respond to complaints on a regular basis.

In summary, quality of service is critical. There are many aspects to this but at the end of the day that is all that really matters, because serious short falls in this means you are no longer relevant and should be out of business. For a government service with community service obligations it shows little respect for the needs of the community it is supposed to represent.  

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

Pause For Reflection

As our politicians and policy makers continue to pay lip service to warnings by scientists (made over many decades) to reduce emissions and stop the destruction of the earth’s biosphere it is worth reflecting on thoughts of Carl Sagan, astronomer, astrophysicist, author and researcher, referring to the pale  “Blue Dot” that is planet earth, an image taken 32 years ago from the Voyager1 probe about 6 billion km away.

“Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home…The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena…Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some  privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark.

In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand. 

There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of  human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world..it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we have ever known”.           

Despite numerous claims by our politicians and policy makers, our “leaders” continue to plan on the basis of business as usual to suit their own political agendas and ignore lessons that should be learnt from failed civilisations during the last 10,000 years.

The extent to which this results in global decline and ultimately collapse has always been in our hands, but whatever course of action humanity takes from now on, adaption in an increasingly hostile world on a planet that supports fewer and fewer people will be unavoidable and needs to be planned for.

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.