Category: governance

More on Governance

TfM has become increasingly concerned about the declining standards of governance at the political and institutional level within all levels of government. As noted in an earlier blog, poor governance is the main reason we have consistently achieved poor transport outcomes in Melbourne and Victoria generally but it is a complex issue with no simple solutions. Many of the problems have their roots in political thinking/dogma which can be very difficult to change. Three papers will be included in our blog over the next week by President Nick Low to provide a better understanding of this issue. These include: The Dysfunction of ‘New Public Management’, a lesson from Covid 19, How neoliberalism mutated into crony capitalism andActivating Public Planning. The first of these is included in this blog.

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

The global experience of planning the response to the Covid 19 pandemic has revealed many failures of governance across the nations, both failures of political leadership and failures of the neo-liberal institutional models that govern policy making in the 21st Century.

The death of neo-liberal economics occurred in 2008 with the GFC. But its zombie-like ghost remained to haunt governance. The post-mortem has only just begun – most recently with the work of Kay and King (2020) – though the sickness was foreshadowed much earlier. The work of forensic examination of the corpse must continue to identify specifics of ‘organ failure’. In what follows I examine one such failure.

New Public Management

The particular neo-liberal organ of governance I examine is called ‘New Public Management’ (NPM). NPM is a theory of public sector management whose assumptions are built on the axioms of the Chicago school concerning human behaviour and its motivation. These axioms of ‘rationality’ are critically discussed at length by Kay and King (2020, e.g. p. 110 et seq. ‘The triumph of the American school’). The central axiom of the ‘American school’ is that individuals always seek to maximise their own ‘utility’. Further, the benign social outcome of utility-maximising individuals is only achieved through the free market. The precise connection between NPM and the Chicago School is too complex to address here. But it is important to note one observation of Kay and King which is relevant to what follows. The authors say, ‘Our brains are not built like computers but as adaptive mechanisms for making connections and recognising patterns. Good decisions often result from leaps of the imagination.’ (ibid: 47). With NPM there was a failure to imagine what is needed to protect the population of the State of Victoria, Australia, from the spread of the virus from returning travellers.

The central assumptions of NPM are as follows.

Professional experts in fields relevant to public policy are self-interested in promoting policies and understandings of the world that emerge from their professions. Professions are viewed as organised institutions promoting their own self-interest. Thus professional personnel are biased in favour of policy priorities that support their employment and remuneration. Fields of policy can thus become ‘captured’ by professional interests. (Somehow the economics profession has exempted itself from any implication of policy ‘capture’). Instead, people trained in ‘management’ replace professionals in senior executive positions in the public service. Their function is to ‘manage’ what political leaders decide, mostly meaning managing contracts with private sector agents.

There is scepticism about any value of ‘the public interest’ other than is demonstrated by market outcomes. Thus, the proposition that a profession might, at least in some important respects, represent the public interest in any particular field is discounted.
Only political leaders competing in electoral arenas are capable of devising policies in the public interest. Competition for votes becomes a kind of substitute for competition for customers. Policy making is thus seen as a top-down process, in which policies and their implementation are radically separated. In the words of Jan- Erik Lane (2000: 179), ‘In public policy, the policies government decides centrally are to be implemented either by means of central bureaux steering public employees at lower levels or through wide discretion on the part of policy networks’. Presumably the networks involve public and private sector actors.

These assumptions are simplistic and ideological. They have no basis in scientific observation of human behaviour. They justify the neoliberal programme of deregulation and reduction of the size of the public sector, in short, the hollowing out of the state. They support the desire of the economics profession to reduce economics to mathematical algorithms in order to make it look scientific and politically neutral.

The consequence for public sector management drawn from these assumptions is that the public sector should be structured with three elements: political leaders who decide policies, consultants (typically private sector) who advise political leaders, and managers who implement contracts to embody policies. In what follows I trace the unforeseen consequences of the NPM approach in the public health arena which resulted in a catastrophic failure of planning.

The outbreak of the Covid 19 virus in the State of Victoria, Australia, in 2020

After quite successfully containing the spread of the virus in a ‘first wave’ from March 2020, a second wave of infections hit the State of Victoria in July 2020. 768 people died from this second wave.1 The long term health of many more has been affected. The State was forced into ‘Stage 4’ lockdown which included a curfew between 8.00pm and 5.00am, enforced closure of many businesses, bans on movement beyond five kilometres from home, and compulsory wearing of face masks. The lockdown was enforced for more than three months.

It was established by genomic tracing that all of the second wave of infection originated from two quarantine hotels in which returning travellers were forcibly sequestrated. The virus was spread by hotel security guards who were insufficiently protected from the virus. Businesses suffered and the whole Australian economy was shocked. Political leaders such as Daniel Andrews (Premier of the State of Victoria) must of course accept ultimate responsibility for such a failure, as he has. He quickly announced a public inquiry into the outbreak. The head of the inquiry, Justice Jennifer Coate, reported in November 2020. No individual was found to be responsible. But the root cause lies deeper in the lack of effective planning conducted by Victoria’s public health administration.

In recent years planning for infection control from all sources began with the report by Dr Rosemary Lester published in 2014. Lester is a highly qualified expert in public health and epidemiology. Her report was delivered to the emergency management authority (Emergency Management Victoria). The epidemiological expertise shines through the report. Lester recommended the use of personal protective equipment and training in its use ‘in all health care settings’. Her report was shelved.

Under the name of the Minister for Health, a second planning report was published in March 2020 authored by senior public servants of the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). These public servants had no public health or epidemiological background. Their report showed no awareness that the people looking after those quarantined in hotels needed to be equipped as health workers, with appropriate training and personal protective equipment. The report is a managerial document focusing mainly on the (then) three stages of governmental response. It draws heavily on a similarly managerial report from the Federal Department of Health.

In June 2020 an ‘operation’ was devised by DHHS named ‘Soteria’ (after the Greek goddess of rescue). This operation was designed to manage quarantine of returned overseas travellers. The DHHS displayed nothing on its website about the operation, about who devised it or what its aims were. At the public inquiry headed by Justice Coate a sheet ofinstructions to ‘hotel security staff’ emerged: ‘OPERATION SOTERIA, PPE Advice to Hotel Security Staff and AO’s (sic) in Contact with Quarantined Individuals’. It advised that personal protective equipment was not required to be worn by security staff at any point of contact. The latter include the hotel lobby, the quarantine floor, and at doorways to clients’ hotel rooms. Only hand hygiene and surgical masks were ‘recommended’. Hotel quarantine clients (guests) were recommended to wear surgical masks ‘if tolerated’.

It is obvious that this operation did not benefit from epidemiological advice. In evidence to the Coate Inquiry, Professor Lindsay Grayson (Director of the Austin Hospital’s infectious disease department) said that, as well as training in the proper use of masks, security guards at any point of contact with hotel guests should have been dressed in full personal protective equipment (PPE) to the same standard as health workers. It is also common sense. Epidemiological advice should not even have been needed. Everyone who reads a daily newspaper or receives a digital news feed would already have known how infectious this disease was. The report by Rosemary Lester states:

‘The use of appropriate PPE is recommended in all healthcare settings, including primary care and health services. … Where the use of appropriate PPE is recommended the equipment must be suitable and maintained. Appropriate training must be provided to the individual using PPE at a time prior to the pandemic to ensure they become competent and proficient in its use’ (p.48).

The managers of Operation Soteria did not exercise their imagination enough to see that the situation of hotel quarantine was a ‘health care setting’. They followed the normal, easy solution of contracting out peripheral health work to private companies, without first ensuring that the workers were properly trained in the use of protective equipment and suitably supplied.

The Health Department leader of the Covid 19 response decided to spread responsibility for the operation among government bureaucrats including police and emergency services. Lester’s report states, ‘The Chief Health Officer or delegate would assume the role of State Controller and liaise closely with the Emergency Management Commission’. The Chief Health Officer of Victoria was reportedly excluded from taking control.

The private companies sub-contracted the work to labour supply companies employing casual workers. Many of these workers in the so-called ‘gig economy’ had several different jobs on the go. Unprotected from the virus, they contracted disease from returned travellers (or allegedly from a night manager of one of the hotels) and, before they began showing symptoms, spread the virus to their families and to colleagues in other work settings, who in turn became infected and spread the virus further through the community, resulting in an explosion of over 18,000 cases of the virus.

The Head of DHSS at the time had no qualifications in either epidemiology or public health; in fact no qualifications in any branch of health. This person was simply a career bureaucrat with a Masters in public administration. The division of the Department of Health and Human Services responsible for epidemic planning (the division of ‘Regulation, Health Protection and Emergency Management’) was headed by another career bureaucrat. This person was previously Deputy Secretary, Budget and Finance, a ‘Director of the Allen Consulting Group and a partner in Deloittes’.

The Division’s functions are described as bringing together ‘professional and epidemiological expertise to protect the Victorian public from avoidable harm. The daily work of the division brings us in contact with such risks as drugs, poisons, infections, contagions, emergency

incidents and the risks of super bugs and pandemics’. In practice, before the outbreak, health professionals were sidelined and given no control over the planning of the response to Covid 19.

The Coate report found that blame for the outbreak could not be assigned to any individual. Nevertheless the Minister of Health was subsequently dismissed from her position, and later resigned from Parliament. The Head of DHSS resigned to become a partner in the ‘strategy focused’ business consultancy firm EY Port Jackson Partners based in Sydney. The divisional manager was stripped of responsibility for Covid planning. Yet the systemic failure of New Public Management was not noted and the concept continues to operate across all departments of the Government of Victoria.

When cautious steps to contain the outbreak failed, the Government of Victoria took decisive steps to contain the virus by preventing people from congregating and thus transmitting the disease. This strategy, coupled with effective testing and tracing was highly successful. But problems with quarantine hotels have since emerged repeatedly in Australia, resulting in temporary lockdowns. Step by step the State Governments have learned from experience what works and what does not. They are now demanding the establishment of specialist out of town quarantine stations to replace inner city hotels.

This quick learning by local political leaders, trusting epidemiological advice, is what has spared Australia from the worst outcomes of Covid 19. But it is time to reassess the effect of New Public Management, which brought the State of Victoria so close to disaster and cost so many lives. The belief that professionals simply promote their own material interests is wrong. Professionals have interests, of course, specific to their disciplines, but those interests can and often do coincide with the public interest. Public health professionals, for instance, have an interest in and a commitment to public health.

Politicians in a democracy are by definition non-experts. Their job is to represent their constituents. That job cannot include understanding all that is required in any particular field to achieve the public interest. The issues involved are invariably complex and require specific training and knowledge. The politician’s job is to listen to professional expert advice and then decide how to act. Fortunately that is what political leaders in Australia have now learned from Covid 19. The NPM assumption that political leaders can do without professionals in leading roles in the public service has been shown to be wrong.

Tags crony capitalism

climate change governance government policy

Zero emissions – What does that mean for transport?

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 06/05/2021
No Comments on Zero emissions – What does that mean for transport?

Old Gas Pumps

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), or industry including tractors and other machinery for agricultural purposes. It also includes the embedded energy in the construction, maintenance and renewal of supporting infrastructure.

How long have we got to phase these out?

Scientists have been saying for decades we must restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees to provide a safety margin that protects us from the risk of tipping points that would put the planet on a hot house trajectory with catastrophic warming of six degrees or more. Earlier estimates gave us twenty or thirty years to achieve this. But scientists now reveal these estimates were optimistic and that 1.5 degree warming is already locked in – even if we cut emissions to zero immediately and that we need to achieve a reduction of 125% by 2030.

We are now told we need to reduce emissions to zero by 2035 to avoid a 2 degree warming. Two degrees warming reduces our chances of stabilising our climate and avoiding catastrophic warming, but TfM believes on the basis of earlier forecasts and the prospect of delays caused by business as usual inertia this figure will be revised downward in coming years so we should not use it as a target – we need to reduce emissions as quickly as we can and aim for zero by 2030, with an interim target of 50% reduction by 2025.

This means removal of all motorised transport, machinery and equipment within eight and a half years.

Politicians and others might like to argue this is unrealistic, but the reality is the planet is not open to discussion on this matter, and responding will challenge our values, aspirations/expectations and choices we must make. This was reflected in my closing address at our last forum, The Future We Must Plan for, but I have added a quotation from Prof Carl Saga’s famous “Blue Dot Speech below, delivered at Cornell University in 1994.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena……Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known, so far, to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.

Tags zero emissions

climate change governance government policy

Zero emissions – The looming challenge

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 05/05/2021
No Comments on Zero emissions – The looming challenge

Gas pumps in an abandoned filling petrol station.

It is just possible the magnitude, scale and complexity of the challenge might be dawning on some of some of our politicians. Whilst most continue to believe it can be addressed by simply bolting a greenhouse emission program dominated by technological fixes onto business as usual, some may appreciate this will require nothing short of transformational change and that Australians will be one of the most critically affected. Whether our politicians are up to it is another matter. Our current crop clearly are not. Most need to be replaced/voted out by people that treat the situation seriously, as a genuine emergency with a comprehensive plan.

This applies to all tiers of government, but it also requires institutional repair and reform within all government departments and other agencies that must provide expert advice without fear or favour – something which has been lost over recent decades but will become critically important in managing the transformational change required in coming years.

As noted in our latest forum, progress in responding to our environmental challenges (of which climate change is a major part) has been dogged for decades by vested interests intent on maintaining business as usual by downgrading the need for action, often attempting to discredit or call into question the science and making it a political issue, or using greenwash to rebadge business as usual. This situation continues today. The cost of poor governance has become obvious during the last year. The failure of Victoria’s hotel quarantine system and degraded capacity of government departments to respond which resulted in hundreds of deaths is an obvious example but is only one of many that demonstrate the urgent need for reform within all levels of government.

As noted in our last forum there are many things that can and must be done immediately to respond to our environmental challenge but the major barrier has always been the politics. That has to change but this will require sustained public pressure to make it happen.

Tags zero emissions

governance government policy

The Premier’s One Belt One Road “Deal” Dead and Buried

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 25/04/2021
No Comments on The Premier’s One Belt One Road “Deal” Dead and Buried

Serious concerns were raised about this “deal” in an earlier blog last year. Some of these related to matters of national sovereignty and it is not surprising the federal government has vetoed it. But It also raises fundamental issues of governance which has concerned TfM for some time. It is our view that sound governance and proper process is critical if we are to achieve better outcomes: not just in “transport” but all aspects of government policy with profound impact on our daily lives.

What is particularly concerning is this “deal” according to The Age Friday 23 April was a closely guarded affair done by the Premier in his own office with his then secretary Chris Eccles. According to The Age, senior officials who had trade expertise with links to China were never called and the matter was never approved by Andrew’s cabinet. Further “had he consulted with his federal Labor colleagues they might have told him …. it was its policy not to sign up to the program”.

We believe similar behaviour has been repeated more generally in the state government’s transport infrastructure program. This has also been the subject of earlier blogs, and a forum was run on it (governance) in 2017, but the situation does not appear to have improved since. All governments need checks and balances to keep them honest. It seems the need for transparency and public scrutiny of government at all levels has become increasingly critical.

Tags belt and road, china, debacle, foreign influence

best practice buses governance government policy light rail

Why cities planning to spend billions on light rail should look again at what buses can do

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 11/04/2021
No Comments on Why cities planning to spend billions on light rail should look again at what buses can do

Article by Michael McGreevy, Research Associate, Flinders University

Many cities in Australia and around the world have recently made or proposed investments in new light rail systems. They often do so in the belief this will not only increase public transport use, but also lead urban renewal and improve a city’s global image. However, compared to light rail, my research shows a system of buses running along dedicated corridors, known as bus rapid transit, has many advantages for Adelaide (the focus of my research) and cities like it.

The advantages include:

a bus rapid transit system is cheaper to construct and run
it takes less time to introduce with less disruption
being able to leave designated lanes offers greater flexibility to pick up passengers where and when needed.

In contrast, retrofitting light rail onto arterial roads has proven expensive, slow and highly disruptive. For example, 12.5km of arterial-based light rail in Sydney cost over A$150 million per kilometre and took more than five years to complete. Given these inherent problems, Australian cities such as Adelaide with new light rail systems on the drawing board should first take another look at bus rapid transit.

Australian cities face hurdles to public transport use

Most Australian state and territory governments have similar transport-related goals. These include to become more environmentally sustainable and reduce traffic congestion, which saps productivity. They typically aim to achieve these goals by increasing public transport use at the expense of cars.

Globally, affluent cities with high levels of public transport use have comprehensive public transport networks. These systems allow people to travel from one place to another anywhere in the city quickly, cheaply and conveniently with minimal interchanges.

In contrast, Australian cities are car-oriented. Their radial “hub and spoke” public transport systems primarily allow people to get to central business districts and occasionally major regional centres quickly, cheaply and conveniently. They struggle to do so for suburb-to-suburb trips.

In Australian cities, 75-90% of jobs and commerce are located in their suburbs. This means the structure of public transport is a major challenge for increasing patronage at the expense of cars. But what if existing arterial roads can be converted for use by rapid bus transit?

Adelaide: a case study

My research looked at the alternative of bus rapid transit along a corridor in metropolitan Adelaide where a new light rail track is proposed. From the CBD, this corridor runs about 7km east to the hills and 9km west to the sea. As an indication of the likely cost, a 1km extension along North Terrace of an existing line cost more than $A120 million in 2018.

The area within 3km of the corridor contains around 40% of metropolitan Adelaide’s jobs, major recreation and shopping facilities, most of its universities, and the airport. Buses running in often highly congested and slow traffic provide the only public transport in the area. As a result, public transport use is very low compared to similar areas in other Australian cities.

Bus rapid transit services run along designated lanes down the centre of arterial roads, as would an arterial-based light rail.

Like Adelaide’s existing tram lines, a bus rapid transit service would run along the middle of existing arterial roads. Morgan Sette/AAP

Stops are spaced at similar intervals to light rail and resemble stations rather than a typical bus stop. Such systems are in place around the globe, one of the most famous being in Curitiba, Brazil.

The advantages of buses add up

The great advantage a bus-based system has over light rail is cost. They can run along existing roads and don’t need expensive tracks and overhead wires.

As a result, bus rapid transit can be built for less than 10% of the cost of light rail. The buses are also cheaper to run per passenger journey and have similar journey speeds to light rail. Bus rapid transit can be established in months rather than years with minimal disruption to surrounding businesses and residents.

Buses do have some disadvantages compared to light rail. For a start, when diesel buses are used, they cause significant noise and air pollution. Using electric buses can overcome these problems.

In addition, individual vehicles normally carry fewer passengers than light rail. However, my research shows low passenger capacity per vehicle is an advantage in low-density suburban areas, such as those along the proposed corridor in Adelaide. That’s because it means the buses have to run more often, making the service more regular, convenient and reliable.

Another advantage over light rail is that in low-density areas, vehicles can leave designated lanes and venture for 2-4km into suburbs to pick up and drop off passengers. This vastly expands the number of households in the system’s catchment and means passengers can get to their destinations with no interchange or just one.

Finally, the inner and middle suburbs of Adelaide, where most residents live and work, have many wide straight roads suitable for bus rapid transit services. It would be possible to develop around 100km of BRT lanes connecting existing light rail, heavy rail and busway infrastructure. I estimate a comprehensive network could be built for well under a billion dollars in a few years.

A similarly sized light rail network would cost tens of billions of dollars and take decades to complete, if it was to happen at all.

Therefore, if cities want people to switch from cars to public transport, bus rapid transit is the superior option in metropolitan Adelaide and potentially other cities with arterial road networks and low suburban densities.

Article republished from The Conversation

Tags Adelaide

best practice bike climate change governance government policy sustainability

Melburnians urged to ditch cars for short trips

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 26/03/2021
No Comments on Melburnians urged to ditch cars for short trips

Article by Jackie Fristacky

As more people turn to driving post COVID, peak transport advocacy group, Transport for Everyone (T4e) is asking that the Victorian Government better educate Melbournians on the adverse impacts of driving fuel-based vehicles on city emissions, especially for short trips.

T4e highlights the New Zealand Energy & Conservation Authority (EECA) finding released last Friday, that 3 out of 5 people did not know that reducing the use of petrol and diesel cars is one of the most effective means of reducing emissions and climate change. This is despite reducing fuel usage from driving being nearly 4 times more effective in reducing emissions than recycling from the waste stream. Thus the EECA is urging Kiwis to swap the car especially for short trips. See: https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/124586956/kiwis-urged-to-swap-the-car-for-a-cycle-walk-or-scoot-on-short-trips

T4e urges Melburnians to similarly think about their contribution to city emissions and poorer air quality through short trips and consider simple alternatives. The organisation’s President, Jackie Fristacky joins the EECA in emphasising that “It is short car trips of 1-2 kms that produce the highest emissions compared to longer trips, because cold engines use more fuel and multiple short trips bring more toxic emissions.”

“With over 20% of car trips being under 2kms, 10% under 1 km, and 50% under 5 kms, these trips can readily be converted to walking or cycling, with huge multiple benefits in reducing emissions, congestion, travel cost burdens on households and improving health,” said President Fristacky.

Data from the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources has shown that while emissions from energy sources have fallen, emissions from transport were 33% higher in 2018-19 than in 2001-2002. Further, our National Transport Commission has identified that passenger cars in Australia produce 41% more emissions per km than in Europe and 16% more than in the US.

T4e has written to the Minister for Roads and Public Transport seeking that the Government combat rising emissions from transport by budget allocations in the May 2021 budget to upscale investment in walking, cycling, and electric vehicle recharging, vastly improving bus frequency and connectivity, and urging Victorians to use alternatives to driving, especially for short trips.

For more information, contact Cr Jackie Fristacky AM, President, Transport for Everyone (T4e) on Mobile 0412 597 794 or transport4everyone1@gmail.com

best practice governance government policy sustainability

Taxing electric vehicles

A knee jerk reaction to a broader problem and sends the wrong message.

The State government intends to implement a 2.5 cent/km charge on electric and other zero emission vehicles, including hydrogen vehicles, and a 2.0 cent/km charge to plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles. It argues that owners will continue to pay a fraction of the motor vehicle-related taxes and charges that other vehicle owners pay to encourage uptake, while still making a fair contribution to the cost of building and maintaining the road network Victorians rely on everyday. It also argues that revenue raised from this charge will enable the government to continue to invest in the road and transport network, including in new electric vehicle charging infrastructure and reforms to enable electric vehicle ready new buildings.

TfM has a number of concerns with this policy.

First, whilst electric vehicles will not be the answer to our transport problems (embedded energy/environmental costs associated with mining, processing of raw materials, manufacturing etc are significant, they still need to be charged and disposal at the end of the life cycle is problematic) they are a considerable advance on conventional motor vehicles as far as emissions are concerned and should be promoted. These vehicles are already expensive and a state government tax on them at this time sends the wrong message.

Second, vehicle registration and other taxes should be the principal funding source for road maintenance – not capital works and is an area that is already grossly underfunded. The condition of our roads has been a matter of grave concern for many years and will soon become critical.

As noted in the Auditor General’s report (Maintaining State-Controlled Roadways. Andrew Greaves, Auditor-General, 22 June 2017) :

“We rely on roads for access to work, schools, shops, recreational activities, health care and other services. Roads also play a critical role in the movement of freight and goods across Victoria. VicRoads manages about 24 000 kilometres of arterial roads.

Road networks in poor condition cost the community more, through increased fuel usage, vehicle maintenance costs and travel times. When road surfaces—referred to as road pavements—are in poor condition, they are also more expensive to maintain and repair.

The report concluded

“The increasing proportion of the state road network in very poor condition presents a growing risk to public safety and increases road user costs.

Not enough funding is allocated to road maintenance to sustain the road network, but VicRoads also cannot demonstrate clearly that it is making the best use of its existing maintenance funds.

Its approach to road pavement maintenance is reactive, with maintenance generally being carried out only when it becomes critical. Targeted early intervention to prevent roads from needing more costly and extensive maintenance has been limited. This approach has not kept up with the rate of deterioration of road pavements across the network”.

Little has changed since this report was written. Concerns tabled above are short term governance issues which must be addressed as a matter of course but raise more fundamental concerns for the longer term. Environmental change will force fundamental change in the way all societies live, and the imperative to consume less, and reduce waste, pollution and environmental degradation. From the transport perspective this means traveling and transporting less, less often and doing so more efficiently. This must be reflected in the way our roads are designed, used and managed.

The most appropriate policy response is therefore to manage them in a way that reflects these imperatives with “carrots and sticks”. Heavy vehicles, which do most of the damage to our roads should be taxed to reflect this and incentives provided to transport goods and services in a more efficient manner – such as by rail which is significantly underutilised, and by a range of other measures that reduce the freight and passenger task in the first place. Government should also use road infrastructure in a way that favours more efficient modes of travel such as road-based public and active transport (walking and cycling).

There also needs to be an appreciation that supplies of materials required for road maintenance are limited and this is becoming increasingly critical, particularly bitumen, concrete sand and aggregate. Government must respond by reducing the stock of infrastructure (contrary to public perceptions, Victoria has an abundance of road infrastructure, much of it overdesigned in terms of scale) and use what we have more efficiently instead of building more. As noted in the Auditor General report the cost of poorly maintained infrastructure is already high and a false economy which will end up costing the state government and the Victorian community dearly if it is not addressed soon.

Tags electric car, electric vehicle

best practice governance government policy models of excellence public transport sustainability

Victoria’s Draft 30-year Infrastructure strategy

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 03/03/2021
No Comments on Victoria’s Draft 30-year Infrastructure strategy

Submission by Transport for Melbourne 21 February 2021

General comments

Transport for Melbourne (TfM) welcomes the invitation by IV for community feedback and submissions for its draft 30-year Plan. We appreciate the opportunity to review it and discuss fundamental assumptions that underpin it as well as the principle objectives and guiding principles that have been used to develop the plan. There are a number of key principles we support and think it appropriate these be restated in our submission.

TfM acknowledges the need for an infrastructure plan to be developed based on a framework that best meets community aspirations and values for this State, supported by guiding principles and processes which enable projects to be evaluated and ranked to ensure the program meets the needs of Victorians and provides the best possible return on investment for the community based on a triple bottom line evaluation process.

This plan must acknowledge (and we believe IV does) that physical infrastructure cannot solve all problems. Further, that the prime function of physical infrastructure is to support social, community and business services and activity and that it is critical this be provided, managed and maintained in the most cost effective and efficient manner to meet these needs. It is a waste of money if it fails to do so recognising benefits are maximised if the service values/outputs are maximised and the cost of providing, managing and maintaining the infrastructure are minimised.

It follows that physical infrastructure has no intrinsic value on its own and pursued in isolation simply becomes an exercise in temple building which can be used/abused for political purposes with little accountability. We believe that in the absence of good governance and proper process this can have a very damaging impact with profound implications at all levels – socials, economic, political.

An extension of the above is our concern for the need for good governance and adherence to proper process. This has been a growing concern and was the subject of Transport for Melbourne’s annual forum in 2017. This issue will become increasingly critical in the future and it is pleasing that this is reflected in IV’s plan.

We agree it is important that a plan be developed with goals/objectives and guiding principles to achieve them. IV has listed ten of these. These must be linked with scenarios for the future – the future we must plan for. Without this planning is merely wishful thinking and a waste of time. IV rightly considers the need for short, medium and long term planning horizons, recognising that the future is becoming very uncertain and difficult to plan for, and there is a compelling need to provide flexibility and adaptability/agility as conditions change or underlying assumptions become invalid.

Covid has demonstrated how quickly and profoundly situations can change. It has exposed our vulnerability to sudden shocks and the need for planning to reflect this. This is of particular relevance for the design and provision of physical infrastructure, much of which tends to be set in concrete with a high risk of becoming a stranded asset as conditions change.

IV has rightly drawn attention to climate and environmental change and the need to respond.

Climate Emergency

The dimensions, scale, complexity and urgency of this issue have not been reflected in IV’s 30-year plan and targets and assumptions used in it are outdated. This has profound implications for many of the of key assumptions in the plan and the integrity of the plan itself.

Environmental change and its implications for the future was the subject of the Sustainable Cities Sustainable Transport forum held in 2009, and updated on 4^th December 2020. The program for both forums and forum summary are attached. [1] Prof Will Steffen who presented at both forums has, as a member of The Climate Targets Panel in January 2021 titled Australia’s Paris Agreement Pathways: Updating Climate Change Authority’s 2014 Emission Reduction Targets presented the following key findings

“As the Secretary General of the United Nations has repeatedly warned, we are in a climate emergency. The window for action is closing, with recent research suggesting climate tipping points may be breached very soon. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology recently gave evidence to the Australian Parliament that the country is on track for 4.4°C of warming this century. This would be catastrophic for our society, health, economy and environment”.

The Climate Targets Panel has concluded:

To be consistent with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target must be 74% below 2005 levels, with net-zero emissions reached by 2035.

As noted above, Transport for Melbourne’s annual forum round table on the 4^th December 2020, reviewed the dimensions and scale of these issues with even more compelling findings. Whilst reduction of Greenhouse emissions are critical, actions to reduce them, will not on their own be sufficient to address our climate emergency. The need to address the degradation of the biosphere is becoming increasingly critical and will soon become the factor that ultimately drives climate change/global warming and determines our fate. Despite this, governments have not responded with targets on this issue. It is also clear that emission reduction targets will continue to be reviewed and revised as modelling becomes more sophisticated and the climate situation evolves. It is feasible that targets outlined in the report above may already be outdated. Prof David Karoly indicated at our forum that we need an even greater reduction of 125% by 2030 and that there are some potential shocks in the science that have still to be published. It was also proposed that 4.4 degrees may well be lower limit and could be as high as 6 degrees. But this is a global figure and for Australia the figure will be significantly higher.

Some of the critical actions required to respond to our climate emergency include the need to

Reduce our consumption and the demands we make on the planet’s natural resources
A giant Landcare/Earthcare project to restore much of the environment we have trashed – not just in Australia but throughout the world
Huge waste reduction, reuse and effective recycling programs to reduce the poisoning impact on our planet and the demand we make on it harvesting the resources we need
These activities will create many new jobs but we need to value these jobs properly and financially
Change the way we produce and harvest food – it is this activity which is the cause of many of our environmental problems today
The need for a fundamental shift in mindset about the limits to growth (both population and economic) recognising that we have already passed them in a biophysical sense and that sooner or later we will be forced to depopulate remembering that if we don’t the planet will do it for us. This is also a reminder that contrary to current thinking and expectations, technology will not solve our problems. The evidence overwhelmingly points to the risk that on its own technology will most likely make matters worse and must be used as a support for behavioural change.

Implications of global biophysical change are profound and will impact all societies at every level: the way people live and work, particularly in our cities, what jobs have value, the population that can be supported, how communities can be fed, serviced, maintained and managed, land use and how the economy is structured.

It has been clear for many decades there are no magic single fix solutions to this challenge. It is a problem that has been generated by the social, economic and political “system” that underpins modern human societies. This “system” has operated for thousands of years but the impact has accelerated significantly since the Industrial revolution and again since WW2 largely as a result of huge advances in science and technology that have enable humanity to plunder the natural resources and degrade/destroy the biosphere to such an extent that humanity is now living beyond the capacity of planet earth to support us and in a way that is contributing to climate change and global warming. Further, that business as usual will put us on a hothouse trajectory that will be irreversible and ultimately lead to our extinction – most likely well before the end of this century.

It is this system with its beliefs, expectations, values and behaviours that must change.

Prof Johan Rockstrom (Potsdam, Germany ) described our situation in late 2019 as so serious it will require an effort equivalent to the Apollo program to achieve success. Apollo was a large-scale concerted effort involving science, politics, the public sector and industry employing resilience and creativity. There was a common goal. With climate, he argues there is little time left. We have less than ten years to transition the whole world to a new logic. Success or failure lies in our hands.

Implications for IV’s 30-year Plan

Broader issues

The implications for IV’s 30-year plan are profound. Every single issue addressed in the plan has been on the basis of incremental change and business as usual parameters and projections to varying degrees. All of these will become outdated and invalidated very quickly as the impact of rapid environmental change manifests itself and will do so in a way that challenges traditional values and behaviours, expectations and aspirations within our existing social, economic, political “system”. It is a system that will be have to change, whether we like it or not and in the process put under enormous stress. We believe this must be reflected in IV’s plan.

Limits to Growth

Many of the recommendations developed in IV’s 30-plan have been based on the expectation of continuing population and economic growth. It is critical that limits to growth are reflected in this plan with an understanding that these have already been exceeded and whilst there is some momentum for further population growth this will be limited and quickly reversed before long.

Limits to Growth was the subject of the Club of Rome’s report in the early 1970’s which has been updated regularly since, including 2008 by Dr Graham Turner (CSIRO) with findings presented at the 2009 forum. These projections excluded the impact of climate change. With its inclusion and the compounding impact it provides, societies are rapidly approaching tipping points which will have profound implications for the provision of the necessities of life – particularly food and fresh water at a time when traditional practices are coming under increasing scrutiny and pressure to change. Under this scenario all objectives in IV’s plan need to be challenged and replaced by a one’s that provide a response to the impending climate emergency and “system change” in which the word sustainable is replaced by “survival” and notions of growth become irrelevant.

System Change, Goals, Priorities and Time Frames

The climate emergency has been predicted for many decades and many voices have been warning of the need to act. It is a scenario that few political leaders have been prepared to acknowledge let alone embrace and scientific evidence indicates that the worse case scenario might be an underestimate of the future we must plan for. It is recommended therefore that the maximum time frame for IV can be no more than 10 years ie the time required to achieve system change and targets outlined above. Anything beyond must be considered highly problematic at best, or irrelevant and most likely an acknowledgement of failure. Recommendations should be designed to contribute to the following goals ie outlined above with measurable targets

Reduction of greenhouse emissions based on latest targets by the Climate Targets Panel but anticipate these may be tightened further ie to 125% by 2030 or even more
Reduce consumption of everything, particularly of natural resources
Stop degradation of the biosphere – every aspect of it and commence restoration as a top priority immediately
Mechanisms to commence system change at all levels.

Items 2 and 3 have already been noted earlier. Governance and proper process will become critical factors in progressing item 4.

Priority should be given to

proposals that provide a direct response to the climate emergency consistent with the necessary “system” transformation
programs and projects that provide outcomes/outputs that can be measured against environmental targets on a system wide basis rather than inputs or wishful thinking based on business as usual
measures that deliver benefits quickly – the shorter the better because time is critical. We cannot wait for large scale projects to be completed. It is unlikely any of the mega- infrastructure projects in the State Government’s big build would comply anyway. At the very least they should be independently reviewed and a system developed for prioritising them that is consistent with environment goals and targets
ignore concerns about the need to support industries and services that will have no future – the challenge for the airline industry for example to meet zero green house emissions by 2030 is immense. Almost certainly it will become a sunset industry with stranded assets – public and private
support industries that have a future and contribute to goals and targets outlined above and the system transformation necessary to make it happen
projects that deliver behavioural change. This will include those that use technology as an aid to achieve it rather than a means on its own, but many of the levers required to achieve behavioural change may not be technology based.

Whilst it is tempting to recommend individual projects, greatest impacts will occur from initiatives that promote behavioural change within the system as a whole. This can be achieved by applying levers where small interventions in one area create larger changes system wide, with impacts that can be measured and compared against system goals and targets. It must be recognised that there are no single fix solutions. Many of the initiatives will require the creation of new jobs and new industries and opportunities for government to invest. This can become a mechanism for addressing many of social/poverty issues.

Transport Implications

Transport is a derived demand based on the social, economic, technological, political and environmental system that prevails at the time and will be subject to profound change. Current modelling, largely based on business as usual must be replaced with one that reflects the need to respond to the climate emergency.

Transport goals must be to travel less, less often and more efficiently. Government must provide the incentives to do so this with appropriate design and management of its stock of infrastructure. Government must make more efficient use of existing infrastructure and resist the temptation to build more. There will be increasing pressure to do this as communities come under increasing social and economic stress as environmental pressure mounts. Achieving zero emissions must be based on emissions from every part of the lifecycle including imbedded energy, maintenance, renewal etc and calculated on a whole of life basis. This has huge implications for all modes of transport including public transport. The only mode that meets this target for personal travel at this time is active transport – walking and cycling.

This in turn has implications for transport infrastructure and the need to reduce its cost and promote most efficient modes of travel. This is of particular significance for freeways and tollways which promote more travel rather than less, encourage people to travel longer distances rather than shorter and more often using least efficient modes (cars and trucks). The inevitable increase in social and economic stress caused by environmental change will also challenge government’s ability to finance high cost infrastructure, particularly mega infrastructure projects in the State government’s Big Build program.

Concluding Comments

The integrity of any plan depends on the assumptions and guiding principles that underpin it. Any flaws will cast doubt on the integrity of the entire plan. The fatal flaw in IV’s latest 30-year draft plan is its failure to accept that climate and environmental change is manifesting itself not just as a challenge for the future but in a way that threatens all life on the planet and as a consequence must be classified as a climate emergency and addressed as the top priority.

This requires a fundamental change in mindset and reinforces the need to abandon a number of assumptions that have contributed to the current situation. This includes the need for continuing growth (population and economic), reliance on technology to solve our environmental problems and a belief that this can be done in a way that avoids radical system change – a change that reflects our values, aspirations/expectations and choices we make in the way we live. In other words it overturns the popular view by politicians, policy makers and the business community that our climate emergency can be resolved largely by bolting a greenhouse reduction program driven by technology onto “business as usual”.

In this respect the response to the Covid “emergency” is instructive. During the last year it has resulted in a significant reduction in greenhouse emissions, particularly in transport, but this has not been the result of technology or market forces. It has been driven by behavioural change forced by the pandemic itself and government intervention which has been supported in turn by existing technology – not new. The climate emergency will force far greater and more profound change and like covid demand major behavioural change and this will have to be driven by government intervention – not market forces, with technology playing a supporting role. Covid has also demonstrated that in the event of an emergency the need to act is now – one cannot wait for new technology and rely on it to solve the problem. The same rationale applies to infrastructure and mega-infrastructure projects with long lead times.

Politicians, policy makers and planners have failed to grasp these imperatives but mindsets are changing as evidence of the rapidly changing world and its impact on humanity becomes increasingly apparent. IV has an opportunity to reflect this in its plan and cite the overwhelming scientific evidence to support it. TfM believes the criteria which underpin program recommendations must as a consequence be revisited and changed in light of the above.

It is also recommended that infrastructure needs be assessed on the basis of comprehensive plans designed specifically to meet environment goals outlined above instead of on the basis an adhoc list of projects.

Comment On Specific Recommendations

There are some proposals outlined in the 30-year plan that have merit in the short term. Some are no brainers that have been recommended for many years and should be actioned immediately. We also have concerns about others. These are reviewed briefly in general terms below.

Preparation of environmental scenarios based on latest scientific evidence is critical. This must include social, political and economic impacts to confirm the future we must plan for. This is something TfM has been arguing for many years
Improved governance and accountability is essential and must be reflected in every aspect of government activity. The need to prepare (and publish) a transport plan for Victoria is only one example, but such a plan must be consistent with environmental goals and targets outlined in this submission and open to public scrutiny
Improved energy efficiency is important for all activities, not just for households. Phasing out of coal power generation and gas and replaced with renewable energy is critical but this needs to be supported by a proper plan that encourages people and business to use less power in the first place
We support a number of IV’s public transport recommendations, such as network improvements for buses and trams and other service improvements, including the introduction of electric buses but all of these must be developed as part of a comprehensive public transport service plan that includes all PT modes, with clear objectives, and targets that contribute to global targets for the transport system as a whole
Reallocation of road space to priority modes is critical and must also be an integral part of the PT service plan but must also be seen as part of a holistic transport strategy for the system as a whole
Active transport is the only form of transport that is remotely sustainable and an environment must be created that makes this a mode of first choice for many more trips. We don’t need more data on this – we know what to do and must get on with the job of making it happen
Concerns regarding congestion and travel behaviour need to be reviewed – but need to be thought of in terms of system inefficiency and a systems based strategy that includes service and regulatory levers rather than the band-aid approach proposed on this plan. There are many ways to change travel behaviour – pricing is only one and a very inefficient one at that. Reliance on this alone is simplistic and will deliver poor outcomes
TfM does not support the recommendation to charge different PT modes separately. PT works as a system and pricing must reflect this.
Similar comment applies to numerous recommendations on road pricing in this plan. There are other ways of looking at this which have been discussed in a paper prepared by TfM
The need for integrated transport and land use planning has been acknowledged for decades – but requires one that integrates land use with all modes of travel, not just the motor car
Waste reduction is critical but it is important this be carried out comprehensively. There will be no simple single fix solutions
Increased tree canopy for our cities is important but is a first step towards a major habitat restoration program noted earlier in our submission
The need for more public housing has been acknowledged for a long time, but there are many ways of doing this. Building more public housing is only one way of achieving this
TfM has serious concerns about the State government’s Big Build projects. They are too costly, take too long, most will have a perverse environmental impact and even the best of them will make a minimal contribution to environmental goals and targets. All run the risk of becoming stranded assets very quickly and leave Victoria with a huge debt burden
The climate emergency will require mega programs to progress “system” change. These may require some physical infrastructure but it is not yet clear what this might be.

R D Taylor

Roger Taylor
Chair Transport for Melbourne

Tags 30-year, infrastructure strategy, Victoria

best practice governance government policy models of excellence public transport sustainability

Our transport future – Time to take stock

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 13/02/2021
No Comments on Our transport future – Time to take stock

Introduction

Very little planning has been carried out in anticipation of the profound changes we should expect in the future. What little has been done has been carried out piecemeal, without any appreciation of the changes that should be expected in the social, political and economic system as a whole. It is time to take stock of the current situation, develop some scenarios for the future we need to plan for, develop goals and a framework and priorities for plans and programs to achieve them. But any programs must be system based and outcome focused with measurable goals consistent with international targets and timelines based on reputable scientific evidence.

Current Thinking

Transport planning and thinking, despite the overwhelming evidence of global change, dominated by climate and environmental change more generally, continues to be based in large measure on the assumption that life will continue in most respects as business as usual. In other words, current thinking assumes global environmental change is just another background issue that can be considered separately with grudging acceptance that our future will need to focus on greener energy such as electric cars and other technological advances, and there is plenty of time to transition which can be achieved by incremental change.

This mindset is clearly articulated by the State government and its big build program but it seems to be a prevailing view amongst many transport planners. It is also driven by an expectation of continuing population and economic growth. This mindset must change. The reality is none of the above are valid and reflects a lack of understanding of the gravity of the environmental situation and the profound implications for every aspect of human activity, including transport.

Transport – a Derived Demand

Transport is a function of the social, political and economic environment which is constantly changing. Covid has demonstrated how easily it can be disrupted. Many businesses will fail to adapt and disappear under pressure of climate and global change. This must be anticipated in our transport planning. For example there has to be a question mark over the future of the airline industry and its ability to operate with zero carbon emissions. This will have a cascading impact on the local economy, local transport demand and supporting infrastructure in the future. There will be other industries that find a place in a new and hopefully more sustainable world but it is not clear what these might be or transport services that would be required to support them.

Transport projections based on continuing population and economic growth must also be challenged despite convictions held by most politicians, planners and economists to the contrary. Prediction of longer term transport needs is very difficult if not impossible in a world of increasingly rapid change but there are limits to growth and it is most likely these have already been exceeded. Whilst some growth will occur in the short term it will almost certainly be short lived and inevitably reversed before long as the planet’s biosphere becomes increasingly degraded and supports fewer people. This scenario can be expected to apply increasingly to all societies throughout the world. This will have profound implications for all societies throughout the world – social, political and economic and must be reflected in transport plans for the future.

A Transport Philosophy For The Future

Transport must be designed as a “system” that is flexible and can adapt rapidly to the changing environment it supports in a way that meets environmental goals. This will require a mission statement with measurable targets that can be monitored and used to apply pressure for change and hold governments and their agencies to account. But it cannot be developed in isolation. It must be developed as a “service industry” that is an integral part of the broader social, political system of which it is part.

The immediate implications for transport planners should be for people to travel less, less often and more efficiently, to use and manage our existing stock of infrastructure as effectively and efficiently as possible before building more. Government must develop policies and a framework to make this happen. Whilst technology may provide some assistance in achieving these outcomes its prime function must be to promote behavioural change. Reliance on technology alone will not solve our transport problems, or environmental problems either. Many of the technologies envisaged will take time – time we do not have, and need to be tested to ensure they work. More likely, as has happened so often in the past they simply make the situation worse contrary to expectations by politicians, economists and planners today. This has been confirmed many times in the past and has been one of the dominant factors that has led to the collapse of many civilisations, and has been the main reason for our global environmental crisis today. But in the current environment the rate of technological change may not be fast enough either – a critical consideration at a time when the need for change has become urgent.

Prof Johan Rockstrom has described our situation as so serious it will require an effort equivalent to the Apollo program to achieve success. Scientists have given us this decade to get our act together, to transition the whole world to a new logic. This is a challenge humanity cannot afford to fail – to do so would put us on a hothouse trajectory that would result in a mass extinction event that would lead to our ultimate demise as a species.

best practice governance models of excellence public transport sustainability

Curitiba – Once a model of sustainability in the broadest sense

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 07/12/2020
No Comments on Curitiba – Once a model of sustainability in the broadest sense

The city of Curitiba, in southern Brazil, is famous among urban planners for its innovation and rational development, with a reputation for being highly livable and very sustainable. It was one of the first cities to market itself as “green” in a 1980s advertising campaign. In 2010 it won the Globe Sustainable City Award and its transportation system could in many ways justify a claim as a model of excellence. Subsequent events over recent years highlight how easily this can be lost.

Integrated Transport System

The development of Curitiba’s world-renowned transportation system began in the late 1960s, early 1970s. Unlike other Latin American cities, Curitiba’s planners decided to address the process of transportation as an integrative approach that can assist in the development of the city. In Curitiba’s case, its planners recognized that transportation systems can serve as the backbone for the development and growth of the city in the future.

Its system uses only buses and was initiated by a visionary mayor in response to lobbying from a group of young architects who were not impressed by the urban fashion of borrowing money for big highways, massive buildings, shopping malls and other showy projects.

Jaime Lerner was one of these architects. In 1971 he was appointed mayor by the military government of Brazil. At the time Lerner was confronted with severe financial constraints so his approach had to be small scale, very cheap and participatory.

Concentric circles of local bus lines connect to five lines that radiate from the centre of the city in a spider web pattern. On the radial lines, triple-compartment buses in their own traffic lanes carry three hundred passengers each. They could go as fast as subway (metro) cars, but at one eighth of the construction cost.

The buses stop at Plexiglas tube stations are designed by Lerner. Passengers pay their fares, enter through the tube and exit from the other end. This system eliminates paying on board and allows faster loading and unloading, less idling and air pollution and a shelter place for waiting, though the system was so efficient that there was not much waiting.

After implementation average bus speeds increased from 5/6 kph to 18/20 – more than three times as fast. Additionally, to avoid congestion in central areas, various streets in the city centre were pedestrianised. This measure initially received negative feedback from local shop-owners, but is now internationally admired. Bike lanes also run throughout the entire city.

Curitiba’s early success provide valuable lessons, but so do its recent failings.

Many Brazilians were attracted to Curitiba’s reputation as a functional, humane city. Its population has grown from 350,000 in the 1960s, when aggressive planning began, to 1.7 million today, with more than 3 million in the greater metropolitan area. Shades of killing the goose that laid golden eggs. The New York Times reported last year that Curitiba recycling rates were down and, as the city sprawls, its famous bus system has had trouble keeping pace. If you ask someone how to go by bus, the answer is very often: “Take a taxicab.”

Worse, the development of Curitiba has led to dramatic deforestation: ninety-nine percent in the state of Parana, of which Curitiba is the largest city. This and other challenges demand continual vigilance by a city known for its innovation — and also a shift from past authoritarian planning styles to a more democratic approach that involves civil society and mobilizes private property interests. So, despite the success of aggressive urban planning measures undertaken forty years ago, Curitiba must continue to update its initiatives and adapt to the times.

Tags Brazil, Curitiba

governance public transport service value for money

Public Transport – Considerable Scope for service improvement

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 09/11/2020
No Comments on Public Transport – Considerable Scope for service improvement

If we are serious about running a train service why do we replace them so often with buses?

There was a time when ensuring train services never failed their passengers was top priority. Sadly that is not the case today. Too often passengers wait forlornly for trains that arrive late or never show up. Often the service is replaced with a bus. If that is not bad enough, customer advice provided for stranded passengers on such occasions is frequently poor or even misleading so it is too late to make alternative arrangements.

Too bad if you are an elderly person for whom toilet facilities and refreshments and the need to stretch your legs periodically during the course of the journey are important, particularly for long country journeys which become considerably longer if they are replaced by a bus. Too bad for other passengers who use their bike as a link mode for suburban or country journeys and cannot carry them on the bus – leaving them stranded in the middle of their journey. Too bad if the delays result in a missed appointment or missed connections at the other end. And the list goes on and on. Little wonder our trains and public transport system generally is regarded by many as irrelevant or as a poor man’s service and why so many people prefer to travel by car – or even by bike these days.

There is no good reason why this should be the case. It is a mindset issue. Successful businesses understand if they want to stay in business in a competitive environment the customer must be “king”. Whilst it is true that public transport is classified, and rightly so as an essential community service it is a service that exists in a very competitive travel market and there is no reason why it should treat its passengers so poorly. Poor service also has serious financial implications. If the government wants to improve the financial bottom line it must increase revenue from the fare box but that will not happen unless passengers are treated far better than they are today.

Whilst it is true that much of the problem stems from antiquated infrastructure and equipment in need of upgrading or replacement, the result of neglect and underfunding, it also stems from changed attitudes and works practices, and in some cases even lack of expertise. The system needs to be maintained to a standard where breakdowns don’t occur but carried out in a way that does not affect passenger service.

In earlier times capital infrastructure and much of the essential permanent way maintenance works were carried out at night after the last train and before the first train the following morning. Works gangs became very skilled at working in these situations. Too often these days train lines or line sections are routinely shut down – often for extended periods of time to carry out this work and buses used to replace trains. Not only does this degrade the service for passengers on the line but it destroys the networking functioning of the system as a whole and the ability to travel by making connections with other trains, trams or buses.

It is difficult to imagine a shop owner putting up a notice in the shop window to advise customers the shop is closed during the trading period for shop repairs or maintenance. The shop owner would be out of business in no time. Melbournians pay for our public transport and have every right to demand better service. There are no easy solutions but there are opportunities to improve the service quickly and cost effectively simply by changing attitudes and work practices.

Tags State Government

governance public transport service value for money

Understanding Transport – it is about service

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 02/11/2020
No Comments on Understanding Transport – it is about service

One of the reasons transport outcomes have been so poor in Melbourne is a fundamental misunderstanding about transport itself, particularly amongst politicians who tend to think of transport and solutions necessary to improve transport outcomes in terms of infrastructure.

Transport is a service industry and transport choices are made by businesses and people on the basis of service and options available to travel or move goods and services in a competitive market. People’s travel needs are diverse. In this sense there are many market segments but for the most part these needs can be defined in terms of convenience, safety, timeliness, comfort, journey time and for some in terms of cost/price and efficiency.

Most Melburnians drive their car by force of habit or lack of choice but many will walk, cycle or use public transport if these alternatives are attractive enough to meet their needs. In many situations these alternatives could be viable travel options for many more trips. They certainly are in many other cities, and will become increasingly important as people look for more travel options in a post covid world.

But as we have already seen the covid world is not business as usual and some of these options are also under pressure and present new challenges for government, particularly for public transport. Travel cost will become increasingly important if we enter an extended period of recession or depression. Depressed conditions also have implications for government as traditional sources of funding such as fuel excise, GST etc and even parking revenue come under pressure forcing State and local governments to look at new ways to fund transport services, infrastructure maintenance and renewal works which will inevitably be passed on to travelers and the broader community.

If politicians are serious about creating more travel options ie to compete with the car for more trips they need to approach this with a service focus. There are no simple or single fixes however. It will require a comprehensive service strategy and investment plan to match. Some service issues require infrastructure investment but many won’t. In situations where infrastructure investment is required it must be well targeted to ensure it supports the service plan.

Unfortunately much of the investment in Melbourne’s transport today, particularly for personal travel is on infrastructure without any reference to people’s service needs and invariably without a proper plan. Most of it is on monumental infrastructure projects that are focused more on creating jobs than addressing service needs and promoted for political purposes or by others with a vested interest in the outcomes. If we want to improve transport outcomes this thinking will need to change.

Tags State Government