Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance best practice

Another Transport Crisis – Looking for Solutions

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.

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 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 best practice government policy light rail

Transport Priorities – Back to basics

Categories
best practice bike sustainability zero emissions

The Need for a Personal Mobility Plan for Melbourne

Governments at all levels seem to have forgotten urgent messages delivered at COP26 a little over a year ago to reduce green-house emissions. There has been minimal action on transport since. All the trends continue in the wrong direction and there are no credible plans to correct and reverse them. As the impact of covid wanes, government focus is on a return to business as usual, and massive infrastructure programs that will promote more travel, enable people to travel further generating even more emissions in the process. In the meantime, our carbon budget is rapidly shrinking. At current rates it will be gone within 6 years if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, or within 10-12 years if we want to limit it to 2 degrees.

It is time governments at all levels declared their commitment on this issue, and the extent to which they are really serious about addressing it. If they cannot make this commitment, they must say so and explain the implications.  There is a lot that can be done very quickly if governments had the mindset and will to do so but unless there is radical change the most likely scenario is a 4-6 degree “warming” which will render most, if not all of our planet uninhabitable.

Achieving rapid reductions in emissions is possible but conventional transport plans which focus largely on infrastructure will not achieve this. These focus on inputs rather than measurable outcomes and are generally designed to increase mobility and travel movements instead of reducing them and result in further increases in greenhouse emissions.

What is required is a mobility plan that is designed to operate within the limitations of a carbon budget. This budget must be set at the level required to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees at most and provide the basis for limiting and rationing transport movements.

The carbon budget must be shared amongst all sectors within the community. Transport must be assigned responsibility for operating within its own budget. This must be carried out by government – the transport industry and people who use it cannot and should not be expected to assume this responsibility. It can be achieved by simply rationing fuel and must include imbedded energy in transport vehicles, infrastructure and all other transport related activities. Fuel rationing is not new. It was carried out during war time and other crises including the OPEC oil crisis in the !970’s, and can be accompanied by a range of other measures designed to limit or moderate energy demand within the transport sector.

The plan must be designed to make the transition based on this environmental imperative by traveling less, less often over shorter distances and more efficiently. Removal of all fossil fuel powered vehicles before 2035 must be one of the key objectives.

The mobility plan must identify future transport pathways with transport options designed to meet a wide range of people’s travel needs supported by incentives to encourage people and business make the transition and disincentives to continue with business as usual. It is a service-based plan complete with carrots and sticks to make it work and deliver measurable outcomes and meet specified targets, with special provisions to ensure social and economically disadvantaged are not left behind.

The aim of the plan will be to maximise opportunities for zero emission travel modes, starting with active transport – walking and cycling. Public transport will have an important role but it must become more efficient and operated in a way that maximises its capacity as a network with a level of service that makes it competitive with the motor car, particularly in the short term.  However, the capacity of public transport is limited, and other measures are required to wean the travelling public off fossil powered vehicles.

Electric powered vehicles will deliver a reduction in emissions but it will not be zero. Imbedded energy (and associated emissions) from the manufacture of electric vehicles, materials to make them and all related activities, including disposal at the end of their economic life must be brought to account, together with infrastructure and servicing that supports their use. Energy to power them must also be from a zero-emission source. But the electric motor vehicle must be used in a way that changes behaviour, not become an opportunity to maintain business as usual.

Even if these issues can be addressed, which is unlikely, the uptake of EV’s will be dependent on market supply and the community’s ability to buy them. Achieving this will become increasingly difficult and problematic. It will come at a time when rising costs of living, particularly food and other essentials, rising interest rates (and mortgage stress), collapse of industries that fail to adapt to climate change such as tourism and other industries supported by the Great Barrier Reef, and low or stagnant wage growth will contribute to declining living standards that will put households under considerable stress. These pressures will be passed on to government and add to other pressures including increasing interest repayments to service high debt levels created in response to covid, and the need to respond to a growing number of emergencies such as extreme weather events which will put pressure on budgets, the need for budget “repair” and the inevitability of further cuts to government services. It will become a vicious circle. 

Whilst many, particularly our politicians, will find these trends unwelcome and be resisted they will become a mechanism that helps reduce emissions by reducing the affordability of travel forcing people to travel less, less often and find other ways to travel more efficiently. This will be reinforced by other pressures of a social, political, legal and economic nature, both local and international that will increase pressure for change in the future.

A mobility plan will not be a one-off for the short or even medium term, it must be a plan for the indefinite future. The message to government at all levels should be clear – act now or be left behind and be forced to make a transition that will be far more painful and disruptive in the future. But the decision for government should not be a pragmatic one based on economics and politics – it is moral one and must be acknowledged as such.

Categories
best practice bike climate change public transport traffic congestion value for money

Delimiting Electric Bikes

Whilst there is much talk about electric vehicles being the future for many of our transport needs most of the focus is on cars and larger vehicles which will continue to occupy the same road space and tend to promote business as usual. Far greater attention should be given to promoting small electric vehicles that take up less road space, have less material content and imbedded energy, demand less standby electricity and recharging infrastructure and promote behavioural change ie to travel less, less often and over shorter distances.

E-bikes are increasingly considered an ideal transportation mode as cities emerge from quarantine in the US and Europe. They are a growth industry. E-bike sales in Australia in 2020 were 60,000, ten times greater than electric cars (6000). Ridership is widely distributed and very popular amongst older people, including “grey nomads” and others who had ridden earlier. The e-bike is fun to ride. It encourages people to keep fit, ride more often and ride further but less intensively although they still use 70-75% of the energy used when riding a normal bike.

According to Allied Market Research “The global bicycle market was USD 65.43 billion in 2019. The global impact of COVID-19 has been unprecedented and staggering, with bicycles witnessing a positive demand shock across all regions amid the pandemic”. It is also believed sales could treble by 2030 with a CARA of 10.5% from 2030 to 2030. E-bikes have become increasingly flexible, offering a wide range of power and speed options that enables them to be used for a wider range of personal travel needs and become increasingly valuable as a cargo carrier, carrying loads up to 100kg. The Post Office likes them because they can carry heavier loads than electric or normal scooters.

Given such overwhelming benefits it is appropriate that governments at all levels support this trend and reinforce it with other incentives to get people out of their cars and remove restrictions that make it difficult to make the transition.

One of these restrictions is the limitation on the maximum speed supported by the electric motor, currently set at 25 kph and 250 watts. In Australia this limit was based on European standards adopted in 2009 but these have been updated (2017). Latest US standards allow 32 kph with an additional limit of 45 kph and larger power of 750 watts which enable it to be used to carry heavier loads as a cargo carrier. New Zealand has no speed restrictions but has a 300 watt power limit.

The 25 kph limit is outdated and unnecessarily restrictive, particularly for commuter use and longer distance travel and reduces its attractiveness as an alternative to the car. It also creates a significant speed differential between the bike and motorised traffic around it which increases the risk of an accident. The 25 kph limit has also increased the temptation for bike owners to delimit the motor allowing it to maintain power at higher speeds, which increasing numbers of people are doing enabling them to travel illegally and unsafely at excessive speeds, sometimes powered up to 70 kph or more.

A small increase in the powered speed limit to 30-32 kph would eliminate much of this abuse, and it is argued this should be implemented as quickly as possible. Concerns about the impact of higher-powered speeds on shared pedestrian/bicycle paths can be addressed by the imposition of speed limits. A 10 kph limit already exists along South Bank (10 kph) and applies to all bikes, powered or unpowered. A 20 kph limit may be appropriate along many sections of metropolitan shared pedestrian trails, particularly those that are heavily trafficked.

Of greater concern however is the need to improve the safety of the road network itself. This has been widely discussed over many years and there are many actions that can be carried out to achieve this. The costs are very low compared to those spent on major road infrastructure projects and can be carried out system wide very quickly. The return on investment (using a triple bottom line business case) is many times greater than other road projects, and is supported by treasury modelling from NSW and Queensland which is expected to be confirmed in March this year.

Safety is an important issue and highlights the need for bicycle education at schools and a broader road safety campaign to create a bicycle culture that promotes courtesy and respect for others as well as greater understanding of safety issues. The target audience must be the entire community, including all road users – motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike.

Delimiting bikes should be a top priority and should apply to all bikes, powered or unpowered. Many of impediments to cycling can be addressed quickly and cheaply but it requires system change but there is no single solution. Melbourne could easily become the cycling capital – the Copenhagen of the south and achieve this very quickly. It just needs the mindset and commitment by government to make it happen.

Categories
best practice climate change global warming government policy zero emissions

Planning for “Sunset” Industries

In our last forum we highlighted the need to plan for sunset industries that would struggle and ultimately have no future in a zero emission world and cited the airline industry as a prime example. TfM has expressed concern about the future of this industry for many years and anticipated growing market pressure to force change.  

This is now happening and is the subject of an article by Charlotte Grieve in The Age 31 January Green-shorters aiming to force action on climate. Short selling is a blunt tool that can push down stock prices and make raising capital harder. Green shorting as an investment strategy is in its early stages in Australia, but is likely to pick up around the world as investors develop new ways to invest sustainably, but it can also be used as a tool to coerce companies towards net zero emissions.  

Quoting from her article,  

A Sydney fund manager, Plato Investment Management, which manages about $10 billion, has launched a new global net zero investment fund that short-sells ‘‘dirty stocks’’ to drive down carbon emissions and maximise profits. (It) is targeting energy giant AGL and national airline Qantas as part of a controversial investment strategy known as green shorting, marking the start of a more aggressive approach to sustainable finance in Australia. In the words of Plato managing director Mr Hamson, We have been coercing (companies) towards net zero.  Hamson said that AGL and Qantas have both set targets of net zero emissions by 2050, (however), many ASX-listed corporates set targets with ‘‘no idea how to get there’’ and pointed to AGL’s extensive coal-fired power stations and Qantas’ reliance on yet to be developed technologies for carbon-free air travel. 

The airline industry faces huge challenges to survive, even in the short term and it is difficult to see how it can achieve zero emission deadlines. Any growth achieved in the short term is likely to be short lived at best, together with tourist and other industries it supports.   

Trade implications are profound and ultimately flow through to transport as a service industry for the city as a whole, and regional centres. The airline industry and industries it supports, including tourism are large employers and new jobs must be generated to offset their decline and ultimate demise. We don’t know what these might be but they need to be planned for. The situation will be similar to what the coal industry faces now but the implications are far greater. It is possible the shipping industry might come under similar pressure.    

It is argued that transport planning should proceed on this basis. This must be reflected in all business cases for supporting transport infrastructure: not just the airport rail line but the city more generally which takes into account the flow on impact within the city and regional Victoria. The airline industry will be one of a growing number of industries that will come under pressure and forced to adapt in coming years. Many will fail and disappear. New ones will take their place but these also need to have a future in a zero-emission world. The process of adaption will be disruptive and must be planned for.

Categories
best practice climate change global warming government policy zero emissions

Energy Use – a reality check

One of the messages we have been repeating for some time is that humankind is living beyond the means of planet Earth to support us, that there is an imperative to reduce consumption of everything if we are to have a future, and that includes energy itself. This was the subject of a presentation made by Prof Damon Honnery at the Sustainable Cities Sustainable Transport forum in 2009. It is as relevant today as it was twelve years ago, but it is the scale of the reduction required that is worth repeating. His conclusions were as follows: 

  • Energy demand will likely double by 2050, driven largely by population growth and increasing standards of living. 

  •  Although energy will become more expensive fossil fuels could likely provide for this growth. 

  •  But the world will have to reduce its per capita carbon emissions by 3 to 10x (Australia maybe 12 to 40x) to avoid dramatic climate change.  

  •  Renewable energy would have to increase by a factor of 20x currently used, with non-hydro sources by >100x

  •  Renewables available is limited to around 50-60% current energy use. It cannot provide for growth expected, nor account for emission reductions needed. 

  •  The world will have to get use to using less energy, Australians will have to get use to using even less. 

    Some of the figures quoted above will be greater now. As Honnery said in his presentation, even the transition to renewables requires energy, with a final reminder that the concept of using carbon capture to store emissions (a fundamental assumption in the federal government’s “strategy”) is laughable. Little has changed since, except the situation has become far worse and governments at all levels continue to ignore the fundamental realities and pretend our environmental challenges can be solved using technology alone in a business as usual environment.  

    What is required now is an update of Honnery’s projections by independent scientists in an environment in which they can provide their findings and advice, which can be peer reviewed without fear or favour. The imperative then is for governments to accept these findings and respond openly and honestly with appropriate policies and programs.

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance best practice governance government policy

Transforming Melbourne for a zero emission world

Melbourne must, like all cities adapt to the changing world around us and this includes the need to achieve zero emissions within a decade. At this stage we don’t know what a zero emission world looks like, let alone how to get there and the transformation required, but a brief view of the transport industry may provide some clues of the extent of the challenge.

A zero emission transport sector will require the removal of all fossil powered vehicles. This includes trucks of all sorts, buses, diesel trains, service vehicles of all kinds, emergency vehicles including ambulances and fire engines, rubbish trucks and so on, cars, aeroplanes, shipping, industrial equipment, farm vehicles and machinery(1). Most of these have no ready zero emission replacement. In many cases the infrastructure required is not available or the technology solutions required are poorly developed or not even apparent. Even if there was one, supply lines and delivery times may be long in a globally competitive environment and the cost to replace them will be considerable. Production will also have to be carried out in an emission and resource constrained environment, which in itself poses huge challenges, and there will be similar challenges disposing of the existing fleet.

Under these constraints the ability to replace the existing transport fleet within a decade is near impossible and we can expect a substantial short fall. This in turn will force severe rationing of vehicles which may prioritise vehicles of greatest importance. This will include essential services and freight for food (2) and other essentials. It will also require major changes in consumer lifestyles which force people to travel less, less often and more efficiently. For personal travel there are few options. Public transport is limited and will never have the capacity to take up the slack and many trips that were previously done by car will have to be done by active transport. This has huge implications for the majority of the city’s population who are car dependent, living in suburbs remote from shops and other essential services and where public transport is poor or non-existent.

The above assumes to some extent continuation of business as usual, that people will continue to live in these poorly serviced areas and have similar jobs. It is inevitable however this will not be the case. Many industries will fail in the changing environment. The airline industry will almost certainly be one of these. This industry is already struggling because of covid and this alone may force its demise, but the technology to create a zero-emission industry does not exist and may never do so and even if it did, the economics may be unsustainable.

This is only one example of a sunset industry. There will be many others that fail in the race to achieve a zero emission world. It is inevitable that new industries will emerge and replace some that fail in the meantime but it is not clear what these will be and where they will be located. This will in turn change people’s life styles and where they live. It will also determine their travel needs and the demand for goods and services and the way they are delivered. There will be flow on effects for supporting infrastructure: the need for it in the first place and the way is it designed and used and managed. The implications for food production, essential services and freight are even more compelling and there appear to be no simple or single fix solutions.

Despite this, solutions must be found and very quickly. What should be apparent is that achieving a zero emission world will require nothing short of a radical transformation for Melbourne as a city and in a way few people imagine. Traditional concepts of sustainability and “the sustainable city” and notions of best practice to achieve it will become irrelevant. The issue will become one of survival and politically fraught. The burden of change will fall most heavily on those who can least afford it and the number, which is already large will increase as the gap between rich and poor increases even further. The burden will also be felt by those who are financially vulnerable, particularly car dependent families with big mortgages and those who cannot find work when their jobs disappear.

Politicians continue to ignore the science, as they have done for more than thirty years despite growing evidence that scientists’ worst fears are being realised. If politicians continue to ignore the warnings or fail to act with the urgency and commitment required the situation will become dire and increasingly ungovernable. Despite this, politicians appear more concerned about their own future and being re-elected, using policies designed to maintain business as usual and promote the illusion that everything will be alright to keep people happy, knowing that bad news does not sell. The reality is there is no good news here – it is bad but could be far worse depending on the choices we make now. The right choice would be to accept the need to achieve zero emissions by 2030 or even earlier and if was the case it is likely the scenario outlined above could play out. If the government fails to do this we can expect business as usual to continue for a few more years but end up with a crunch point of far greater severity and an irreversible hothouse trajectory that would result in global temperatures rising rapidly by five or six degrees or more over this century.

Perhaps we should not be surprised by the lack of a positive response by politicians or the community in general. Human history is littered with stories of the collapse of cities and civilisations and is a story that has been repeated over many thousands of years. Invariably the underlying reason was environmental. Jared Diamond has identified five main reasons for past failures which include:

  1. failure to anticipate a problem (no previous experience, no science)

  2. failure to perceive a problem in progress (no measurements, too complex to observe)

  3. failure to attempt a solution (rational, bad behaviour) rational for vested interests to maintain their dominance

  4. failure to change bad values (irrational behaviour, societal values entrenched)

  5. failure to change other irrational behaviour including psychological denial

In the current situation we have the science and can measure it but the other three continue to dominate. These points were made at a presentation by Dr Graham Turner (CSIRO) at the Sustainable Cities Sustainable Transport forum in 2009, and he concluded with the following comments:

  • There are success stories of avoiding collapse, but very few within isolated systems

  • There is a very common recourse to using technology, rather than changing behaviour

  • It appears that we (modern society) have progressed SLOWLY along the road map toward addressing our global problems

  • But we now appear to be potentially in the last stage: solution unlikely

The challenge is to prove him wrong.


(1) Transport is Australia’s third largest emitter (19%) and emissions have increased by 22% since 2005. Road transport makes up the bulk at 84.2%, with domestic aviation 8.4%. Passenger vehicles (cars) contribute more than half of road transport emissions with continuing growth reflecting population growth and increased travel overall, as well as increased fuel consumption due to a switch to heavier, less fuel-efficient vehicles. It is not clear whether this figure includes emissions generated from the construction, maintenance etc of supporting infrastructure.

(2) The food industry is the fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases (approx. 14%) and faces huge challenges of its own to achieve zero emissions at a time when climate change will make growing food increasing difficult.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn