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
bike governance government policy traffic congestion

Cutting speed limits to help reduce greenhouse emissions and pollution, noise, road accidents and encourage walking and cycling

Unlike many of the measures proposed by many nations and the business lobby today which see technology as the answer to reducing greenhouse emission reductions, the focus of this initiative is not on technology but behavioural change designed to get people out of their cars and onto their bikes or simply walk more and limit car use for essential travel. It is a measure that can be implemented with immediate effect at minimal cost. A growing number of cities are doing this in Europe and it has popular support. It is a no brainer and we should be doing it here.

Quoting extensively from the report by Angela Charlton and Jeffrey Schaeffer in The Age 7th October 2021, the latest city to do this is Paris which already had a 30kph limit on about 60% of the city but will extend this to all of the city with the exception of a few main thoroughfares where a 50kph limit will apply.

Other French cities with a 30 kph limit include Bordeaux, Strasbourg and Toulouse, but it is becoming more common elsewhere in Europe. Brussels imposed a 30kph limit on much of the city earlier this year and about 80% of Berlin’s streets have the same rule. Madrid has had speed curbs on most of the city centre since 2018 with a nationwide rule in Spain this year putting a 30kph limit on all one-way urban roads. Similar restrictions apply in residential Amsterdam and the city is proposing to expand this to larger roads.

It is almost certain this trend will continue at an escalating rate – not just in Europe but elsewhere reinforcing the environmental imperative which was clearly stated at our last forum ie to travel less, less often and more efficiently and to focus on behavioural change as the principal lever for reducing greenhouse emissions.  This imperative applies to Australian cities and towns so it is time our politicians showed political courage and implement similar measures. This will require sophisticated strategies for managing the transition but it is critical these be developed as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse emissions and implement it as a matter of urgency. It will require a fundamental change in government mindset however and the abandonment of many of the big build infrastructure projects being pursued by this government and other policies which continue to promote car use and car dependence instead of reducing it.

Some may argue that Australian cities are different – less densely populated and more spread out requiring longer distances to work and essential services, and pin their hopes on electric vehicles. Unfortunately the reliance on technology and EV’s in particular as discussed in an earlier blog is a false hope. It is necessary to include the energy impacts for the entire life of the vehicle – extraction and processing of raw materials, its manufacture etc as well as its use, maintenance and disposal at the end of its life. On this basis the footprint for an EV is no better than a conventional petrol driven car, and this assumes the electric power required for charging the vehicle comes from renewable sources – which in the case of Victoria is not the case and will take many years to achieve.  

Whilst there will be opportunities to improve the environmental footprint of these vehicles, this will take time and even if this was achieved the ability to replace the existing fleet and the capacity of the community to afford it by 2030 is highly improbable. This means we have no choice but to change our behaviour. The 1973 OPEC oil crisis demonstrated that dramatic changes can be achieved when communities and nations are confronted with a crisis. Some of these responses will be discussed in our next blog. Private travel is only part of the transport task however and in some ways is the easiest to address. The challenges confronting freight and essential services to achieve zero emissions are much more difficult and more critical.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
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
Categories
best practice freeways governance government policy megaprojects

Lack of a Transport Plan Slammed by the VAGO

Transport for Melbourne (TfM) and other well qualified transport forums have been constantly reminding the State government of the need for a transport plan. This is mandated under the Transport Integration Act (TIA), so we are relieved that at long last the Victorian Government Audit Office has finally taken the government to task.

However this has fallen on deaf ears and the government continues to insist it has a plan. TfM would respectfully point out that a series of schemes that were developed independently does not constitute a plan. If the government has a plan it needs to tell us what it is, but it is important the government be reminded what constitutes a plan in the context of the TIA. Ultimately it is the quality and relevance of the plan that matters and that is a governance issue.

Quoting from the Transport Integration Act

The transport plan must—

(a)  set the planning framework within which transport bodies are to operate;

(b)  set out the strategic policy context for transport;

(c)  include medium to long term strategic directions, priorities and actions;

(d)  be prepared having regard to the vision statement, transport system objectives and decision making principles;

(e) be prepared having regard to national transport and infrastructure priorities;

(f) demonstrate an integrated approach to transport and land use planning;

(g) identify the challenges that the transport plan seeks to address;

(h) include a short term action plan that is regularly updated.

Almost all of the above are ignored by the current government. The government’s plan comprises an ad-hoc bunch of mega infrastructure projects including the Big Build program and others and a handful of strategies developed by the Department of Transport for different elements of the transport portfolio some of which are poorly developed. There is no vision to guide the plan, or strategic policy context apart from using it to create jobs and win government at the next election, and no attempt to identify the challenges facing us in the future. Government planning remains based largely on the continuation of business as usual.

It was clear from our last TfM forum, The Future We Must Plan For, it will not be business as usual. Covid has demonstrated the vulnerability of our economy and how quickly it can be disrupted. This event is only one of many that is likely to impact our economy and our way of life in the future. The latest IPCC report should be a stark reminder that the future we must plan for is changing rapidly. It will be dominated by environmental change and become a very different world to the one we live in today. This must be reflected in transport planning. The State government’s Big Build program does not anticipate any of this and as a consequence will ultimately result in stranded assets that have no value in the future and a burden of debt.

The absence of a properly constituted plan prescribed by the TIA is a concern but of even greater concern is the lack of checks and balances and proper process by which it has been progressed.

A transport plan must be developed and implemented in a way that is transparent, and follow processes which ensure its integrity and accountability. This requires a framework for assessing and ranking programs and projects in terms of their contribution to the “vision”.

It is critical that priority is given to actions that deliver the greatest return. Such actions are not confined to formal programs or projects. They may include policy and regulatory change, changes in works practices which can result in improvements in operational efficiency and improved customer service that generate better outcomes.

Achieving these goals may require recruitment and training supported by appropriate organisational structures to ensure government is provided with high quality advice and skills to develop and implement policy and ensure proper process is carried out, conducted in an environment which encourages communication of frank and fearless advice to government based on best practice. There is plenty of scope for improvement in this area; it would be a good place to start and that should be part of the plan.

These actions can provide the basis for the development of formal programs and projects funded from working expenses or capital budgets but again the priority must be given to those which generate the highest return on investment.

TfM has long held the view that governments should focus first on the existing “system” and its supporting infrastructure and make it as good as possible before building new. There is no shortage of transport infrastructure, but much of it is poorly maintained, in need of renewal and not used efficiently. This is a critical issue but needs to be addressed as part of the plan and funded accordingly.

Maintenance is usually funded from recurrent budgets instead of capital. It also tends to be tightly constrained so there is pressure to do more with less and focus on measurable outcomes. Investment in this area is therefore likely to be well targeted, yield high rates of return on investment as well as being subjected to a high level of scrutiny and accountability.

Benefits from capital works projects are more difficult to assess and have the potential to be subject to political influence or used for political purposes. Benefits also take longer to be realised, sometimes many years, often long after the minister or government responsible for the project has moved on. This makes it more difficult to audit and hold those responsible to account. As a general rule returns on capital investment vary inversely with the size and cost of the project and mega infrastructure projects have a particularly poor record. The Westgate Tunnel project is a good example but there are plenty more in the government’s Big Build pipeline.

Despite these problems capital works projects continue to dominate transport planning today in terms of publicity and budget allocations, and for many, particularly politicians, perceived to be the essence of a transport plan today.

It is argued that investment in capital infrastructure can be a lazy way to address transport problems. It promotes a mindset that says problems can be solved simply by throwing money at it without the need to understand the business itself and how it can be improved. This mindset is often reinforced by the belief that the bigger and more expensive the project the better the outcome. Under this scenario it is little wonder transport outcomes in this State have been so poor for so many years. This will continue so long as governments prioritise the least efficient and least effective measures to improve our transport system ie capital investment, particularly in major infrastructure projects whilst ignoring or underfunding far more effective mechanisms outlined above.

VAGO is absolutely right to criticise the State government for not having a transport plan. However TfM’s greatest concern is the quality and relevance of the plan and the political environment in which it is created. It is also important that transport planning not exist in a vacuum and must reflect broader environmental obligations including global emission reduction targets which must also be achieved for the transport system as a whole. This must be included in the transport plan and given top priority. All of this requires political leadership, courage, good governance and the environment required to create it. Achieving this will require fundamental changes of a systemic nature – without this we cannot expect better transport outcomes.

The importance of good governance has been highlighted by the covid pandemic. Governments at both State and Federal levels have been forced to listen to medical experts and appropriate institutional structures have existed for them to provide advice. For the most part this advice has been accepted but there have been occasions when politicians have ignored it thinking they knew better, and we have seen the consequences measured in loss of life.

Unfortunately political respect for independent expert advice does not always extend to government departments, which have often become politicised. Too often government ministers and their too commonly unqualified advisors think they know best and poorly treat those who should be providing them with expert advice. This is reflected in poor outcomes, not just in transport but all government portfolios. Addressing this will become increasingly critical if we are to have any success in responding to the challenges that lie ahead, particularly those driven by climate and environmental change.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
best practice freeways governance government policy megaprojects

WestGate Tunnel Project Another “Big Build” Disaster

This project was always a disaster waiting to happen. It is a terrible project and should never have been contemplated let alone built in the first place. It was not part of any transport plan, although to be fair the State government does not have a plan. It is just a project bowled up to the State government by Transurban, an unsolicited bid designed to strengthened its position as a toll road operator, which the government bought because it helped its image of getting on with the job and would create jobs in the construction industry. The case against it is included in the papers section on this web site and have referred to it in an earlier blog.

Lack of feasibility studies and planning was always problematic and has doomed this project. Like all mega infrastructure projects promoted by the State government today, they are rushed to suit political objectives and tenders are called before the design work is carried out. It is a bit like quoting to build a house when you have no idea what the building will look like or the ground conditions on which it will be built. The risk is huge and must be built into the tender price. Everyone knew or should have known that the ground through which the tunnel was to be bored would be heavily contaminated but this was never properly tested so it is no surprise this has become a serious issue and stalled the project at enormous cost.

Quoting Timna Jacks and Patric Hatch “The Age has confirmed with sources close to the project that the joint building venture, CPB Contractors and John Holland, is claiming the project has blown out by as much as $5.2 billion. The dispute centres on the handling of about 3 million tonnes of soil, with an unknown portion of it believed to be contaminated with perand polyfluoroalkyl chemicals – the potential carcinogens known as PFAS”. “PFAS” is so toxic there is no safe way to dispose it but the State government is trying to have it reclassified as a less toxic chemical and has been struggling to find a site where it can be safely stored.

So who is going to pay for this costly mess? The premier has rightly argued that this was not the government’s project “ Transurban came to the government with this project, they chose the builder so they need to sort it out with the builder”. But will it end up like the East West Link where the government ended up paying more than $1billion to cancel the contract after declaring that it could be cancelled at little or no cost?

Whatever the outcome we the broader community will be the losers. Apart from the waste of public funds on a project we don’t need, the opportunity cost of not investing in projects and programs of real need is huge. But perhaps the greatest cost will be ongoing failure of governance, absence of proper process, lack of integrity and breach of public trust. These issues have been nomalised under this government and we will continue to pay a huge price if they are not addressed.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
best practice freight governance

Are We Seeing the Death of V/Line Freight?

Whilst the glory days of Victorian rail freight are well and truly behind us, there has long been a view that rail freight is the most energy efficient way of transporting freight, particularly long haul and bulk commodities such as grain and much of the container traffic around Victoria and interstate. Despite its numerous challenges rail freight has far greater potential to meet its zero emission obligations than road freight vehicles and should therefore be the favoured freight mode for the future.

The recent decision by the State government to allow “A Doubles” as well as “B Doubles” use of Victoria road network comes as a shock. The trucking industry has already taken most of the Vline’s freight business and this decision will enable it to capture much of what remains but increased numbers of very large road vehicles will come at significant social, economic as well as environmental cost.

Heavy trucks account for most of the damage to our road system and this is becoming a major issue in many regional areas. Studies by the BOT in Queensland estimate damage from a “B”double are 23,000 times that of a private motor car. Road damage impacts other road services such as buses which reduces their ability to maintain service schedules and connections with other services and is well documented. It also causes vehicle damage and increased maintenance and servicing costs, as well as increased risk of road crashes and road trauma. Large road vehicles also generate significant noise and air pollution, the costs of which can take years to manifest themselves, but can be severe, particularly in built up areas. According to Australian Rail Track Corporation

  • the accident cost associated with road freight transport is ten times that for rail freight transport on a per tonne kilometre basis

  • the cost to the Australian economy of heavy vehicle accidents has been estimated at up to $3 billion every year.

But the trucking industry has other problems. Heavy truck drivers often have long shifts and are under severe pressure to meet deadlines and make as many trips as possible. Additional pressure can apply to owner drivers to pay financial and operating expenses associated with their vehicle. This creates an environment which encourages drivers to bend or break the rules and drive when they are fatigued. Use of stimulants etc to keep them awake whilst driving is well known. It has been estimated that 10% of drivers are on drugs or stimulants. The crash on the Eastern Freeway last year in which police men and women were killed highlights these concerns. These issues are well understood and is one of the reasons why the work force in this industry is aging and not being replaced by younger people.

It is easy to view the introduction of “A” Doubles as an isolated case of policy failure but is only one many which are systematically undermining the rail freight industry and if not addressed quickly will result its demise in Victoria. It reflects a lack of understanding of the strategic importance of rail freight in the freight industry and what is required to run it as a business in a competitive environment. Given these concerns, this decision by the State Government is extraordinary and must be challenged.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
best practice governance public transport zero emissions

Zero Emissions – What is the Plan for Melbourne’s transport?

Introduction

The Prime Minister recently stated that achieving zero emissions would be similar to tackling Covid – just a case of applying technological solutions and leave business to carry it out, whilst in the meantime proceeding with business as usual. A more accurate assessment of the challenge was made by Prof Johan Rockstrom, that it will require an effort equivalent to the Apollo program to achieve success. I.e., a large-scale concerted effort, hugely complex involving science, politics, the public sector and industry employing resilience and creativity with a common goal. With climate, he argues there is little time left. We have ten years to transition the whole world to a new logic. But it needs a plan and it will need to be far better than the one delivered so far for covid.

Understanding and defining the problem is the starting point for this zero-emission project, but is only the first of many elements that would need to be addressed in a zero-emission plan discussed briefly in these notes.

Elements of a zero-emission transport plan for Melbourne

Essential elements of a zero-emission transport plan for Melbourne suggested below would be reflected in any serious program/project and include the following:

1. Terms of reference – know what you are planning for – scope, outcomes/outputs that are clearly defined and can be measured

2. A deadline for achieving it

3. Implications for not meeting the deadline – usually measured as a cost with penalties in financial terms

4. Steps/milestones that must be achieved, their sequence/order in which they must be completed supported by plans/programs etc to make it happen

5. Allocation of resources

6. An assessment of risks and barriers that must be overcome and strategies and priorities to address them

7. Contingency plans to address unforeseen circumstances that threaten the plan

8. Assignment of people/agencies responsible for implementing the plan, its structure and accountabilities

9. Assignment of auditors and others to monitor progress, measure and record outcomes and hold the program managers to account.

At this stage none of these fundamental elements exist for achieving net zero emissions. Actions to reduce emissions must start immediately – achieving early reductions is just as critical as meeting the 2030 zero emission target but there are no plans for either at this stage. At best we have a vague commitment by the State government and an adhoc list of actions that address part of the problem but we don’t even know the full extent of what we must plan for. I.e., the “project” has not been properly defined yet, so that must be the starting point. It also requires a definition of the end point and recognises that over the course of “project” many of the assumptions made will change as different sectors respond to actions implemented by the “project” and the changing world around it. In other words, it is a dynamic concept that should be more accurately defined as a “framework” which must anticipate changes during the implementation stage and have the flexibility to adapt as they arise without compromising end goals.

1. What is the scope of the plan and what are we planning for?

For the purposes of Melbourne’s transport this means achieving zero emissions generated, directly or indirectly by the transport system as a whole. This includes all modes of transport, supporting infrastructure and emissions from imbedded energy, use, maintenance, renewal and disposal of all components at the end of their economic life.

Whilst the primary goal must be to achieve zero emissions by the end of the program, it is critical emissions are reduced as quickly as possible before the deadline. Some of this will occur directly or indirectly as a result of pressure to reduce emissions over the course of the program/project with implications for the transport task itself, service planning and the need for supporting infrastructure. Whilst many of these trends will be difficult to pick some are becoming obvious and must be taken into account.

The airline industry is a good example. It is already struggling because of the covid pandemic but will be put under more pressure as emission-based taxes such as those proposed by the European Union become more widely imposed. Legal actions such as the case against Royal Dutch Shell by the Netherlands government which directs Shell to reduce its emissions by 50% by 2030 will also impact before long and it is likely more will follow. This ruling applies to all of Shell’s global operations and downstream uses of its oil and gas including all activities that use these raw materials such as the plastics industry etc. This is expected to have flow on effects which will put even more pressure on airlines and other parts of the transport sector.

But these are only short term problems. Achieving zero emissions will be much more challenging. Zero emissions are not confined to the fuel that powers the aircraft but to every aspect of its operations, including the imbedded energy in the planes themselves, their maintenance and infrastructure that supports it. This is an enormous challenge and may make it impossible to survive. If it fails the impact on the local Melbourne economy will be profound. It would remove any justification for a new train line to the airport and the impact on economic activity and transport task associated with it would have flow on effects throughout Melbourne.

Converting the existing road and rail fleet to zero emissions also presents huge challenges and it is not clear how this will be achieved. Even if there are solutions, it is not clear how quickly they could be carried out. Almost certainly there will be factors which limit the take up. These may be technological, supply (of critical materials such as rare earths etc), production (electronic chips etc), affordability or financial constraints within the economy. All may be problematic, even critical in achieving a 2030 deadline. Similar concerns apply to supporting infrastructure on the roads, rail lines and other sources such as stand-alone power from the grid etc.

It has been assumed by many that a transition to electric vehicles will be a major part of the solution to achieving zero emissions, however this is by no means assured. The environmental footprint of an electric powered car, including the imbedded energy to create it in the first place, its use and disposal at the end of its economic life is no better than a conventional motor vehicle. Considerable improvements will be necessary to improve the efficiency of batteries, power sources to charge them and the ability to recycle all components (particularly batteries) at the end of the vehicle’s life. This will require integration with a new “circular economy” – an economy that does not exist at this time.

It is difficult to consider this program in isolation. It will create changes with flow on effects to the broader economy which will rebound to transport. Service/maintenance and other industries that support transport is a good example. Battery driven vehicles require far less servicing and

maintenance than conventional vehicles with significant implications for jobs in an industry that is a major part of the local economy. There will be many other businesses that also fail in an increasingly difficult environment with similar flow on effects that will ultimately impact the demand for transport, the way the services are provided, infrastructure that is required to support it and emissions generated.

Similar concerns apply to the food industry. Climate change presents serious challenges for the food sector that supplies Melbourne. A declining and ultimately zero emission environment will put additional pressure on all sectors of the food industry to grow, harvest, process and distribute it. Each sector will have its own zero emission targets and it is not clear how these will be achieved. For example, how will tractors, other farm machinery, manufacturing plant and transport, all of which is predominately diesel powered be replaced with zero emission power plants? What restrictions will be imposed on petroleum based fertilisers and herbicides?

These are some examples of changes that may be expected in coming years approaching a zero emissions economy. The overall impact would be profound and trigger a major transformation in the local economy and with it a fundamental change in the transport task and the way in which it will be met. It is important these changes be anticipated, planned for and ultimately reflected in transport planning and its own plan to achieve zero emission.

2. What is the deadline?

This should be obvious and well understood but there is little agreement. The federal government is reluctant to commit to any deadline and whilst state and local governments have made some commitments, these vary, there are no properly developed plans to implement them, and none are consistent with latest deadlines imposed by the science. This was clearly articulated at TfM’s annual forum in December 2020 by Prof David Karoly i.e., that to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels – which the G7 group of nations recently committed to, greenhouse emissions must be reduced by 125% by 2030. This means abandoning earlier targets of 2050, 2040. The Climate Council has since advised that limiting global warming to 2 degrees would require zero emissions by 2035 i.e., only five years later. But 2 degrees will put us very close to a tipping point that would result in runaway climate change so it is argued that 2030 should be the latest target date for zero emissions.

3. Implications for not meeting the deadline – usually measured as a cost with penalties in financial terms

Failure to achieve this target i.e., 2030 increases the risk of runaway climate change with increased global warming of up to six degrees Celsius or more that would lead to the extinction of most of the biosphere including humanity. Such a prospect is unthinkable so meeting this target must be seen as non-negotiable and achieved at any price.

4. Steps/milestones that must be achieved, their sequence/order in which they must be completed, and intermediate emission reduction targets

It is not clear how existing modes of transport can achieve zero emission targets by working forward. Such an approach is more likely to promote planning based on business as projections. The most appropriate basis for the development of milestone targets in an emergency situation is to work backwards i.e., back-casting from a zero-emission world of 2030 i.e., a non-negotiable end point and use it as a baseline for setting intermediate goals, which must include interim emission reduction targets and steps required to achieve them. This will require modelling to provide a rational basis for

determining the transport task and how it will be delivered. This will force politicians to confront very difficult scenarios and make tough decisions which have been ignored in the past or put in the too hard basket.

At this stage the only modes that meet zero emissions are active transport i.e., walking and cycling. The most confronting priority relates to the supply of food and essential services – currently provided by petrol and diesel vehicles. This presents a huge challenge and must be a top priority.

Most of emission reductions achieved during the early stages of the “project” will have to be achieved using the existing fleet, ie before it is phased out. This will require a combination of behavioural change involving improved efficiency, transfer to more efficient modes and reduced usage i.e., by transporting goods and services and traveling less often and over less distances, using traditional approaches of best practice. This program will be very short and require the development of external measures such as increased renewable power from the grid and advances in technology etc to make it happen.

5. Allocation of resources and priorities

This is of fundamental importance – without it there can be no commitment, and must be reflected in State government budgets and funding priorities. It must also be reflected in all existing policies, works and services and capital works programs to ensure all of these are contributing to the same goals. Any projects that do not comply, and there are many, particularly in the State Government’s Big Build program, must be axed. Similar priorities must apply at the local government level and measures taken to ensure this happens. This raises many issues of a governance nature which are discussed in an earlier paper “Melbourne’s Transport -The Need for a New Framework for Assessing Priorities”

6. An assessment of risks and barriers that must be overcome and strategies and priorities to address them.

Most of the barriers will be of a political nature. This will require development of strategies to manage the change process. Many of the “levers” that can be applied for this purpose are outlined in a paper by Donella Meadows “Places to intervene in a system”. Briefly this includes, in increasing order of effectiveness:

  • numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards)

  • material stocks and flows

  • regulating negative feedback loops

  • driving positive feedback loops

  • information flows

  • the rules of the system (incentives, punishments and constraints)

  • the power of self-organisation

  • the goals of the system

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

This systems-based approach is applicable to complex systems such as a national or local economy. It highlights the scale and complexity of the task. Successful application will almost certainly require the use of all levers identified above, but the starting point is the mindset, which must change at all levels and without this there will be no prospect of success.

7. Contingency plans to address unforeseen circumstances that threaten the plan.

The environmental imperative must demand contingency plans to ensure zero emission targets are met. It is difficult to specify what these might be but may arise at every level. At a macro level they may be economic due to international market failure, conflict, the loss of key export markets (such as iron ore to China), trade barriers, failures to deal with covid or other diseases, environmental disasters – the list is endless, but there must be plans to counter them.

8. Who will be responsible for implementing the plan, its structure and accountabilities?

This is a critical issue that must be addressed at the outset. It will require amongst other things people and organisations with the skills, knowledge, expertise etc to manage the program and the independence and organisation structures to carry it out free from political and other influences that may compromise the outcome.

9. Who will monitor progress, measure and record outcomes and hold the program to account?

Similar argument applies to the monitoring process etc.

In summary, the ability to achieve a zero-emission transport sector will depend on the thoroughness of the planning process the way in which it is implemented. The scale and complexity is huge, and will require coordination of many other programs driven by similar zero emission reduction and other environment targets which must be run in parallel. Even at this stage, without extensive modelling it is clear that achieving this will require a total transformation of our society, its values, aspirations, expectations, the choices we make and the way we live.

These notes only scratch the surface but they may help start the conversation about the need for a plan. It is becoming increasingly apparent that a growing number of business in the commercial sector are already advanced in their thinking and planning for a zero-emission world but often driven from a narrow corporate perspective. Whilst some will present opportunities to progress better zero emission outcomes as a whole, it is critical these interests are understood and not become opportunities to hijack the program to suit vested interests.

Thinking behind the conceptual framework proposed above has been in response to the “climate emergency”. Missing the targets by five years would commit this planet to 2 degree warming. Missing it by ten years would almost certainly put it in a situation where cascading tipping points occur which would put it on a runaway hothouse earth trajectory and global temperature rises that could exceed six degrees by the end of the century. At this stage we are starting to see the impact of a 1.1 degree warming – extreme heat conditions in Australia during last summer followed by firestorms on an unprecedented scale followed by severe flooding and storm damage, which has been repeated this year in the northern hemisphere with even more extreme temperatures up to 56C degrees C (or 133 degrees F) and torrential rain and flooding in Germany/Belgium and Japan on an unprecedented scale – less than a year later. It is a pattern that can be expected to be repeated with increasing severity with only a 1.1 degree warming. But this is only one of many indicators that highlight the challenges we face in the future.

It could be argued that the prospects of meeting a 2030 deadline with such a program are unrealistic and a waste of time. If that is the case one could argue why bother and simply continue to party and carry on with business as usual and go to hell in a hand basket. A more appropriate response might be to treat this in a similar way to the Japanese threat in the last world war – treat it as if our lives depended on it and do what it takes to survive. In the case of the WW2 the Australian response was immediate but the threat was also far less. The very worst outcome was to lose the war and be

invaded and subjugated by the Japanese – not a great prospect but at least we would survive. The climate trajectory we are facing is one that leads to extinction – a point of no return. Survival will need a plan – not a simple one like the Prime Minister proposed but one of enormous complexity and scale as Prof Rockstrom wrote a couple of years ago from his institute in Potsdam with a reminder we have little time left to develop and implement it.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
best practice car park governance public transport

Federally Funded Railway Commuter Car Parks – Another example of political pork barrelling

The Federal Opposition has rightly accused the Federal government of using the $389 million car parking program as a political rort and is another example of abuse of governance and proper process which we have raised on a number of occasions. But it also raises fundamental issues including the need for a transport framework/strategic plan and an independent process for evaluation and ranking investment programs which is essential to ensure precious funds are spent in areas of greatest need and strategic objectives are met in the most cost-effective manner.

Station car parking does have a legitimate place in a Victorian transport plan for a modal interchange strategy which promotes greater access to the public transport network, but it is a very costly way of doing this and in some situations is totally inappropriate. This is particularly relevant at inner city stations which can be accessed by tram, bus, taxi or where many people simply walk or cycle to the station. Promoting and improving these access modes requires minimal investment in supporting infrastructure and should be top priority. These are locations where the cost of land is relatively high and its use for commuter car parking cannot be justified. In these situations provision of more commuter car parking would simply generate more car traffic but would also encourage people to drive further from outer areas to enable them to travel in a cheaper fare zone.

Middle – Inner city stations such as Glenferrie, and Camberwell Stations are examples where commuter car parking should not be provided in the first place and limited to drop off and pick-ups (“kiss and ride”) but these have been included in the federal government’s car parking program. The Camberwell commuter car park is of particular concern because it is used extensively (inappropriately) by local traders and shoppers and is accessed from Burke Road, a tram route that is already heavily congested. To encourage more road traffic for commuter purposes would simply add to the congestion and its detrimental impact on tram services, particularly in morning and evening peak travel times.

Construction of a commuter car park at Glenferrie adjacent to another tram route on Glenferrie Road would never be recommended for similar reasons, but the cost at this location would be prohibitive. The land would have to be acquired and a multideck car park built. The total cost would be very high for zero net benefit and planning and development issues for such a development would be hugely problematic and politically fraught at the local level. It is amazing none of these issues were taken into account.

None of the above is rocket science and should have been reflected in the federal government car parking program. If priorities had been established independently of

government by state government departments responsible for public transport this rorting should never have happened. But this raises more fundamental issues about the relevance of the motor vehicle in a zero emission world and its impact on travel and transport and the infrastructure required to support it in the future. That is a subject which all governments at all levels need to start responding to as a matter of urgency.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
climate change governance government policy public transport

Achieving Zero Transport Emissions. Where is the plan?

Scientists are telling us we must achieve zero emissions – not by 2050, or 2040 but by 2030. But this will not happen on its own and cannot be left to the “market”. It needs a plan.

A transport plan is already mandated under the Transport Integration Act and whilst it acknowledges the need to respond, prepare and adapt to the challenges presented by climate change and improve the environmental performance of all forms of transport and the forms of energy used in transport, these provisions are merely passing comments and paid lip service by government in an Act which focuses to a large extent on business as usual. Despite the provisions of the Act we still don’t have a transport plan, let alone one that acknowledges the urgent need to respond to our climate emergency. This must change if government is to have any hope of achieving a zero emission target by 2030.

From a transport perspective the urgency is clear and compelling. As noted in an earlier blog zero emissions means no more petrol/diesel or natural gas driven motor vehicles of any kind for personal, business travel and freight (land, sea and air), industry including tractors and other machinery for agricultural purposes. It also includes the embedded energy in the construction, maintenance and renewal of supporting infrastructure. This is a huge challenge and requires a transformation in our transport industry.

But transport is a “derived demand”, a function of the economy it services so the starting point must be to get a better understanding of what a zero emission world will look like. This means the social and economic activities and number of people it will support. We need to ask what jobs will have value (and which ones will disappear), where will they be located? More specifically how and where will food be grown and processed, and other essential goods and services transported in a zero emission world? What will be the social and economic impact on businesses that provide them and the flow on effect for the broader economy? What will their transport/travel needs be and how these be met, and cost implications remembering the vast majority of people in Melbourne are car dependent? It has implications for many energy intensive industries and others such as the tourist industry with its heavy dependence on the airline industry which will have great difficulty achieving zero emissions and most likely no place in a zero emission world. All of this must be reflected in transport policies and strategies and the infrastructure required to support it. It is almost certain much of the infrastructure existing today or being built will become irrelevant, redundant or require repurposing.

Whilst 2030 should be seen as an end point, achieving it will require milestone targets for earlier years. There are opportunities to make significant emission reductions now. This was the finding by Stanley et al in their paper “Reducing Australian motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions” published in 2006, which estimated possible reductions of 40% using a range of measures based on technological improvements and behavioural change. This analysis does not include a whole of life assessment for the transport fleet or supporting infrastructure so it is an overestimate but it would be a significant start.

Achieving this reduction will not be easy of course. The authors recognise these gains would be quickly eroded by population and economic growth and inappropriate land use planning and development that promotes more travel and longer trips. It has also been eroded by transport projects such as new motorways that promote more travel, mostly by motorised vehicles – cars and trucks etc. And it also requires political support and intervention. Whilst measures proposed in the report are conventional – certainly not radical, there has been little or no action since the report was written. Yet achieving 40% reduction should be the easy bit: getting to zero will be far more challenging and require fundamental system change.

The challenge to make it happen within the existing political system is huge. It raises fundamental questions about our society, its values, aspirations and the choices it is prepared to make and there will be considerable resistance to change. Despite this it is clear that when a crisis is identified, strong leadership from government can result in widespread community support and rapid change, including community values and behaviour and a willingness to make sacrifices.

This was clearly demonstrated by the federal government’s initial response to the Covid pandemic and later by the state government’s response to the second wave in Victoria in which the top priority was to survive and do whatever it takes to achieve it. It resulted in major restructuring of government departments responsible for public health, upgrading procedures and technological advances. It is now run like a “war office” with strong linkages to other state governments and internationally. The pandemic has also demonstrated the capacity for rapid technological advances – in vaccines, and timescales, previously measured in decades to less than a year. But it is a reminder that all of this has been driven by leadership at the political level and its capacity to create an environment for change – not by the ‘market”. It is also a reminder that government should never delegate this kind of task to market forces as has so often been the case in the past.

The challenge now is to harness this energy and leadership to respond to our climate emergency. Governments have demonstrated that when they are willing to listen to the science and science experts radical change is possible, but they must get the priorities right and start working to goals and targets with a plan to achieve them. It really is a race against time. They must also do so based on the understanding that we require a combination of technological advances and behavioural change, that technology must be directed to support behavioural change, not used for its own sake for commercial interests, recognising that on its own technology will make matters worse.

There are many challenges that remain unresolved. Currently the footprint for EV’s is higher than conventional internal combustion vehicles so major improvements are required to address this, particularly for batteries to increase their efficiency, reduce their environmental footprint and make them more easily recycled at the end of their economic life. There are encouraging signs with the development of hydride batteries and their potential use in many transport modes, farm machinery and fixed power generation but this needs a plan and must become an integral part of a new “circular economy”. It must also be accompanied by programs that promote behavioural change. In the case of transport, this means to travel less, less often and more efficiently, particularly using travel modes such as active transport which have minimal environment footprints. There is little to be gained if EV’s simply replace the existing fleet in a way that promotes business as usual and leave it to market forces to determine the outcome.

These are questions that should have been addressed decades ago when scientists and others started warning us of the impending climate emergency. Time is fast running out and the time to act is now. The scale and complexity of the challenge is huge. Prof Rockstrom (Director Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, Germany) has described the task as another Apollo project designed to get man on the moon or beyond and here is less than a decade to make the transition. Failure to achieve this and put this planet on a hothouse trajectory is unthinkable and must be rejected. So where is the plan?

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
climate change governance government policy traffic congestion

Achieving Zero Transport Emissions. Why Electric Vehicles are not the Answer

We have expressed concern about politicians’ faith in technology to solve our environmental problems. This is shared by many transport professionals who seem convinced that technological developments in the form of electric vehicles will be a large part of the transport “solution”. But the argument is heavily flawed. The best way to compare emissions for electric vehicles is to assess all phases of the life cycle.

This has been reviewed in an article from the Conversation which has allowed us to post on our blog by Md Arif Hasan, PhD, PhD candidate, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington and Ralph Brougham Chapman Associate Professor , Director Environmental Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington.

There is a lot of discussion on the benefits of electric cars versus fossil fuel cars in the context of lithium mining. Please can you tell me which one weighs in better on the environmental impact in terms of global warming and why?

Electric vehicles (EVs) seem very attractive at first sight. But when we look more closely, it becomes clear that they have a substantial carbon footprint and some downsides in terms of the extraction of lithium, cobalt and other metals. And they don’t relieve congestion in crowded cities.

In this response to the question, we touch briefly on the lithium issue, but focus mainly on the carbon footprint of electric cars.

The increasing use of lithium-ion batteries as a major power source in electronic devices, including mobile phones, laptops and electric cars has contributed to a 58% increase in lithium mining in the past decade worldwide. There seems little near-term risk of lithium being mined out, but there is an environmental downside.

The mining process requires extensive amounts of water, which can cause aquifer depletion and adversely affect ecosystems in the Atacama Salt Flat, in Chile, the world’s largest lithium extraction site. But researchers have developed methods to recover lithium from water.

Turning to climate change, it matters whether electric cars emit less carbon than conventional vehicles, and how much less.

Emissions reduction potential of EVs

The best comparison is based on a life cycle analysis which tries to consider all the emissions of carbon dioxide during vehicle manufacturing, use and recycling. Life cycle estimates are never entirely comprehensive, and emission estimates vary by country, as circumstances differ.

In New Zealand, 82% of energy for electricity generation came from renewable sources in 2017. With these high renewable electricity levels for electric car recharging, compared with say Australia or China, EVs are better suited to New Zealand. But this is only one part of the story. One should not assume that, overall, electric cars in New Zealand have a close- to-zero carbon footprint or are wholly sustainable.

A life cycle analysis of emissions considers three phases: the manufacturing phase (also known as cradle-to-gate), the use phase (well-to-wheel) and the recycling phase (grave-to-cradle).

The manufacturing phase

In this phase, the main processes are ore mining, material transformation, manufacturing of vehicle components and vehicle assembly. A recent
study of car emissions in China estimates emissions for cars with internal combustion engines in this phase to be about 10.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide (tCO2) per car, compared to emissions for an electric car of about 13 tonnes (including the electric car battery manufacturing).

Emissions from the manufacturing of a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt- oxide battery alone were estimated to be 3.2 tonnes. If the vehicle life is assumed to be 150,000 kilometres, emissions from the manufacturing phase of an electric car are higher than for fossil-fuelled cars. But for complete life cycle emissions, the study shows that EV emissions are 18%
lower than fossil-fuelled cars.

The use phase

In the use phase, emissions from an electric car are solely due to its upstream emissions, which depend on how much of the electricity comes from fossil or renewable sources. The emissions from a fossil-fuelled car are due to both upstream emissions and tailpipe emissions.

Upstream emissions of EVs essentially depend on the share of zero or low- carbon sources in the country’s electricity generation mix. To understand how the emissions of electric cars vary with a country’s renewable electricity share, consider Australia and New Zealand.

In 2018, Australia’s share of renewables in electricity generation was about 21% (similar to Greece’s at 22%). In contrast, the share of renewables in New Zealand’s electricity generation mix was about 84% (less than France’s at 90%). Using these data and estimates from a 2018 assessment, electric car upstream emissions (for a battery electric vehicle) in Australia can be estimated to be about 170g of CO2 per km while upstream emissions in New Zealand are estimated at about 25g of CO2 per km on average. This shows that using an electric car in New Zealand is likely to be about seven times better in terms of upstream carbon emissions than in Australia.

The above studies show that emissions during the use phase from a fossil- fuelled compact sedan car were about 251g of CO2 per km. Therefore, the use phase emissions from such a car were about 81g of CO2 per km higher than those from a grid-recharged EV in Australia, and much worse than the emissions from an electric car in New Zealand.

The recycling phase

The key processes in the recycling phase are vehicle dismantling, vehicle recycling, battery recycling and material recovery. The estimated emissions in this phase, based on a study in China, are about 1.8 tonnes for a fossil- fuelled car and 2.4 tonnes for an electric car (including battery recycling). This difference is mostly due to the emissions from battery recycling which is 0.7 tonnes.

This illustrates that electric cars are responsible for more emissions than their petrol counterparts in the recycling phase. But it’s important to note the recycled vehicle components can be used in the manufacturing of future vehicles, and batteries recycled through direct cathode recycling can be used in subsequent batteries. This could have significant emissions reduction benefits in the future.

So on the basis of recent studies, fossil-fuelled cars generally emit more than electric cars in all phases of a life cycle. The total life cycle emissions from a fossil-fuelled car and an electric car in Australia were 333g of CO2 per km and 273g of CO2 per km, respectively. That is, using average grid electricity, EVs come out about 18% better in terms of their carbon footprint.

Likewise, electric cars in New Zealand work out a lot better than fossil- fuelled cars in terms of emissions, with life-cycle emissions at about 333 g of CO2 per km for fossil-fuelled cars and 128g of CO2 per km for electric cars. In New Zealand, EVs perform about 62% better than fossil cars in carbon footprint terms.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
best practice governance government policy

Activating Public Planning

https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/being-a-planner-in-society-9781788973786.html


Having written Being a Planner in Society and its Companion Website I ask myself, ‘what do I want planning to be’? I have an answer, but it is a question for all readers of the book. If I were still teaching urban and environmental planning, I would put that question to my students. More important than my answer is the debates which I believe should today take place around that kind of questioning. I’m hoping the theoretical exploration in my book may throw some light on the matter.

My answer is that I want planning to become a social movement again, to find again its transformative origins, to invent new ways of designing our human response to the environment for the better, and to re-join social with environmental transformation. All this is in light of the experience of planning in theory and practice that we have gained over the last hundred or so years.

However, to do that, to reinstate planning, that is public planning by the democratic state, we need to understand what has gone wrong with the so-called neoliberal model of governance. As I explain in my book, and further illustrated in the companion website, the balance of power over the detailed making and implementation of policy has been transferred from a competent, professional public service, with clear lines of accountability, depth of expertise and longstanding experience, to a political tier with an intense but shallow focus on the political cycle.

 In Australia the unbalanced empowerment of political control has led to a diffusion of accountability in which ‘cabinets’ consisting of most of the senior politicians are put collectively in charge of almost everything important. The drive for privatization has diminished the permanent public service and outsourced many functions which properly belong within government to private firms with no public accountability under contracts, sub-contracts and complex but ineffective regulation.

This process has been going on now at federal and state levels for at least thirty years. Senior economists, political scientists and journalists have complained about it. Thus Laura Tingle in 2015, then political editor of the Australian Financial Review, wrote that ‘we have forgotten how to govern’. John Hewson (economist and former leader of the Liberal Party) writes, ‘The public service has been effectively denuded of essential talent by years of spending cuts and efficiency dividends – many departments are now referred to as gutted shells’. Even the former Labour Treasurer and Prime Minister, Paul Keating, who initially embraced neo-liberalisation on behalf of the Labour Party declared in 2017 that ‘liberal economics has run into a dead end and has had no answer to the contemporary malaise’.

Many people in leadership positions now know that neo-liberalisation has produced a failed system of governance. And it is a governance model created by ideology not an economic model. But because of the path dependence of both institutions and ideas in Australia, nothing is being done to change it. Its failure was on show in July 2020 as the State of Victoria suffered a huge (by Australian standards) second wave of coronavirus.

Through concerted and swift police action to ‘lock down’ the whole country, Australia had been initially successful in containing the spread of the virus, closing all opportunities for people to gather or even leave their homes, with few exceptions. Returning travellers from overseas were forced to isolate in designated hotels for fourteen days. So successful was this ‘suppression’ strategy that when caseloads went right down, governments started to ease the restrictions to get back to something like normality.

However in late June 2020 an outbreak of infections occurred in quarantine hotels in Melbourne. Guards contracted the virus from the confined travellers and, because restrictions on movement and gathering were by then relaxed, the infected guards went home to their families and friends, who became infected in turn. The virus then spread rapidly throughout Melbourne suburbs. The result was a second wave of coronavirus in Australia (with up to 400 cases and three or four deaths per day), centred in Melbourne, much greater than the first wave.

The piecemeal response of the government of Victoria was first to lock down certain postcodes and high-rise public housing blocks where the virus appeared. When that didn’t work to contain the spread, whole municipalities were ordered into lock down, then the whole of metropolitan Melbourne. Now (mid-July) cases are increasing outside the metropolitan region.

It’s easy to blame the Premier of Victoria for this outbreak. But, in an emergency, politicians operate within the established governance model. In keeping with the neoliberal model of outsourcing, contracts were given to private security companies to provide hotel guards. In some cases it appears that these companies further subcontracted the tasks, ending up with virtually untrained and unprotected casual workers in close contact with infected returned travellers.

Casual work has grown from about 13 per cent of the workforce in the 1980s to around 25 per cent in 2020. Casual workers, assumed to be self-employed, now form a permanent, highly exploited, tier of the labour force without the rights accorded to employees. They include aged care workers, Uber drivers, hospital and school cleaners, bar tenders, security guards, abattoir workers and even university staff (averaging 40 per cent of staff). Many have several jobs on the go.

Outsourcing plus casualization of labour is the underlying cause of the outbreak. A government without depth of policy capacity and clear lines of accountability in the public service has proved unable to manage the pandemic, adopting the stop-start approach of suppression rather than elimination, which is both feasible and in the long run less economically damaging. The government has refused to acknowledge the systemic failure, tossing the issue to a public inquiry that will not report until September.

The Covid19 event is an existential crisis. Governments around the world had been warned that a devastating pandemic was likely to occur, just as they have been warned that global heating will have catastrophic consequences. But the absence of public planning for people, planet and places has left citizens at risk of death and disability, and economies in danger of destruction.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
best practice governance government policy

How Neoliberalism Mutated into Crony Capitalism

https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/being-a-planner-in-society-9781788973786.html


Let’s be clear. Whatever system of economic governance dominates the world today, it is not pure neoliberalism. It is better described as crony capitalism, which is opposed to the agenda of those like Friedrich Hayek who started the neoliberal ball rolling. Neoliberalism has mutated into crony capitalism with devastating results for economic growth and social justice, endangering the health and welfare of entire societies.

Crony capitalism has been around in some form or another since the beginning of capitalism itself. I can’t do better than cite the definition in Wikipedia: ‘an economic system in which businesses thrive not as a result of risk, but rather as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business class and the political class’.

The evidence of crony capitalism is abundant over the globe, from Trump’s America to Xi Jinping’s China and Bolsonaro’s Brazil. In Australia its resurgence is recorded in a book called Game of Mates, How Favours Bleed the Nation by economists Cameron Murray and Paul Frijters, in Dead Right: How neoliberalism ate itself and what comes next (‘Quarterly Essay’ by Richard Denniss), and in On Fairness by Sally McManus. I provide a few examples in Being a Planner in Society.

Hayek in his book Law, Legislation and Liberty conceived of an economic governance system in which ‘law precedes legislation’. ‘Law’, governing the behaviour of the market economy, would be determined by a legislative assembly consisting of wise elders (over 45 years old) serving electoral terms of fifteen years. Their election would not be subject to universal suffrage, and anyone receiving any benefits from the state (pensions, unemployment benefits, government salaries) would be automatically excluded from voting. Hayek’s plan was to set up a governing authority beyond political control to prevent elected politicians interfering with the market.

This position was later reinforced by the work of Milton Friedman, and the public choice theorists. As I observe in my book, politics, so it is argued by the public choice theorists, is nothing more than a game in which political actors (inside and outside government) maximise their short term advantage through ‘log-rolling’ bargains’. That cynical view became self-fulfilling.

The problem for the neoliberals is that electoral politics refused to go away, for the simple reason that people value universal suffrage that holds governments to account. The political class therefore continued to hold power even while they paid lip service to neoliberalism. The political class, even in manipulated democracies like Russia today, enjoy their power and legitimacy and work hard to maintain it. So the governance system we have today is a hybrid between corporate economic power supported by antidemocratic neoliberal ideology and political power supported by universal suffrage: that is crony capitalism. This result was what Hayek regarded as ‘the worst of both worlds’: political intervention with private corporate production.

Then came a theoretical spawn of neoliberalism called New Public Management. The ideology of NPM can be interpreted in different ways. It provided a salutary critique of sclerotic bureaucracies that had become distanced from the publics they served, hence ‘customer service’ became a byword for NPM but that admirable goal covered something more sinister. The scope and ambition of NPM is breathtaking;

New Public Management (NPM) is part of the managerial revolution that has gone around the world, affecting all countries, though to considerably different degrees. The theory of new public management contains insights from game theory and from the disciplines of law and economics. … The theoretical background of NPM is to be found in the strong criticism of a large public sector, to be found in the public choice school as well as Chicago School Economics, both attacking since the mid-1960s prevailing notions about public sector governance (Lane, 2000: 3).

There is not space here to undertake a critique of NPM (which is, incidentally, a major lacuna in my book). But the introduction by Lane makes clear the link with neoliberal ideology which I do address in the book. The essentials of NPM are these: the use of quasi-market structures for delivery of services, contracting out of government functions to private firms, setting performance targets and continual monitoring of performance, handing over power to senior management executives, replacing trained personnel in professions relevant to the government function (e.g. public health, environmental conservation, city planning, building regulation) with generalists trained in ‘management’. What this management training in fact amounts to is in-depth indoctrination in neoliberal ideology. Some of the Australian environment and planning failures to which I refer in the on-line Appendix can arguably be traced to the replacement of professionals in senior management by generalist managers. Of course the issue is far from simple, but this is a hypothesis that at least deserves to be thoroughly researched.

Hayek’s proposal to suspend universal suffrage, with society run by a largely unaccountable State, which is at the heart of neoliberal doctrine, was dangerous nonsense from the start. But its design to suspend the struggle for equality was adopted by Regan, Thatcher and a multitude of think tanks funded by corporate wealth. Neoliberalism quickly mutated into class warfare with suppression of the trades unions, vilification and abuse of the unemployed, massive cuts to the public service, and transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest in society. The end result, as we now know, was not long term economic growth but miserly hoarding of wealth piled into tax havens and stock markets: the misereconomy. Crony capitalism is only one short step away from fascism, with populist politicians seizing the moment to limit democratic restraints in order to stay in power. We know where that ends.

The Canadian philosopher John Rawlston Saul saw what was happening twenty years ago. What he called ‘anti-government government’ created a ‘false populist model’. Think of Thatcher’s talk of ‘rolling back the state’, Trump’s talk of ‘draining the swamp’ and, even today’s ‘deep state’ conspiracy theories. Citing Mussolini’s rise to power, Saul remarks, ‘No matter how big and structured the Fascist Party became, it always declared itself to be the voice of anti-party, anti-government politics’.

The examples of crony capitalism in action today come thick and fast in that sector of the daily press that is not devoted to class warfare on behalf of corporate power. Commentators of the independent press in Australia are almost unanimous in ascribing the cause of the second surge in Covid 19 to the impoverishment of the casual workforce, lack of sick leave and poverty-level unemployment relief forcing workers to go on working when they are ill, the privatised system of aged care, and the lack of depth of government response. That is what has now caused 810 deaths and counting, in Victoria, destroyed the health of many survivors, and ruined the economy.

The crony-capitalist governance model as exhibited in Australia, has resulted in corruption of urban and regional planning in which deals are done between developers and governments to enrich the latter at the stroke of a pen. A huge area of Melbourne was converted from industrial to residential zoning without any provision for open space or educational and health services. Companies linked to the government of the day made millions from the increase in land value. Vast road building projects are signed off with private companies to enrich the latter at the expense of the public interest.

Failures of building regulation, outsourced to private firms, have resulted in hundreds of tower blocks being covered in flammable cladding. The weakly regulated private recycling industry has resulted in flammable material stored in huge warehouses, catching fire and belching toxic smoke over residential areas. After much of Beirut was destroyed by an explosion of ammonium nitrate, Australian journalists started nervously looking for stores of this chemical, and found a stockpile in Newcastle, New South Wales, four times the size of the stock in Beirut. Where? Just three kilometres from Newcastle’s CBD.

Hayek wanted to take power away from politicians. Crony capitalism shares power between the political class and the corporate sector. The Australian governance failures that have occurred since the 1990s have many sources: incompetence of a poorly organised and depleted public service, continued class warfare on working people and the unemployed, shameful environmental policy, mental cruelty to refugees, institutional paternalism, sexism and racism. No governance model is mono-causal and ‘pure’. But the current governance model has strayed far from liberalism, whether old or new.

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