Category: government policy

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.

climate change government policy sustainability

Our climate emergency

Read the forum summary

Tags climate emergency

best practice climate change government policy public transport sustainability

The Need to Understand Your Own Business

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 14/01/2021
No Comments on The Need to Understand Your Own Business

Transport is a “service” industry. This was the subject of an earlier blog, and it is important this be well understood. Otherwise a lot of money can be wasted on ill conceived and poorly designed transport projects that do not meet travellers needs let alone standards of world best practice. The average person would assume that people who are planning and designing our shiny new transport infrastructure understand this and get it “right” but here in Victoria they would be mistaken.

This issue has been raised by Peter Parker and reported on his blog www.melbourneontransit.blogspot.com but is of such fundamental importance that I have quoted it here. Illustrations and photographs are included in his blog.

The new Coburg Station

Posted: 11 Jan 2021 11:25 AM PST

“Although the station is open for passenger service, the most direct access to the north is not yet, with long walks to buses. There is not even any wayfinding signage to buses, such as installed on a mass scale during the Metlink signage era (about 15 years ago).

The new Coburg station looks shiny and nice but of long term significance is its poor design as a transport hub. As pointed out by the Upfield Corridor Coalition, it should have been built to straddle busy Bell St, which sees 13 buses per hour (offpeak). This would have enlarged the station’s walking catchment and improved connectivity with buses by allowing people to catch buses either east or west without negotiating one of the northern suburbs’ busiest roads. The diagrams below compare best and more typical design practices for stations involving elevated rail.

An emerging pattern with new stations that emerge from grade separations is that their designers do not always see the public transport system as a whole, including the need for interchange between modes (that should ideally be just a few steps). Maximising walking catchments measured in accessible population / within 10 minutes walk (including that required to cross major roads that poor designs impose on station users) should also be another key criteria when evaluating designs”.

These are fundamental issues that every transport planner and designer should understand and get right. The relevant knowledge and expertise should reside within the Department as a knowledgeable client – one that knows its own business. Unfortunately this is not an isolated failing. Nor is it confined to the transport portfolio. It is a systemic problem that pervades government at every level and we pay a huge price, but it needs to be addressed if we are to respond effectively to really important issues such as the global climate emergency.

Tags Coburg station

best practice climate change government policy public transport sustainability

Transport needs to lift its game

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 16/12/2020
No Comments on Transport needs to lift its game

Recent figures released by the State Government – as reported by Miki Perkins in The Age state that whilst greenhouse emissions fell between the 2017 and 2018 financial years with the largest decline in the electricity sector (17%), “the transport sector remains the second largest and fastest growing source in the state increasing by about 3.5% compared to the previous year.

This is hardly surprising because this State government has done little to promote more efficient travel or the need to travel less and less often. In fact most of the transport budget continues to be spent on roads in a way that promotes motor vehicle transport ie for private, commercial and freight at the expense of more efficient modes. The WestGate Tunnel and North East Link are typical examples. Whilst significant expenditure is committed for the Metro Rail Tunnel and the airport rail link these will have little impact on emission reductions overall – most of the transport emissions will continue to be generated by motor vehicles on our roads. Whilst covid will have forced significant emission reductions for much of this year the impact will be short lived once travel restrictions are lifted and people and businesses return to more normal life.

The imperative to reduce greenhouse emissions (amongst other things) was highlighted in Transport for Melbourne’s annual forum – The Future We Must Plan For on 4^th December in which Prof David Karoly noted that targets to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 were obsolete.

Emission reduction targets have been constantly shortening. This is because the situation is deteriorating rapidly, at a faster rate than modelling had predicted and also because the models themselves are improving and can predict global change with greater accuracy. In 2019 Prof Johan Rockstrom (Potsdam Germany) presented tougher targets of 50%by the end of 2030, 50% by 2040 and zero by 2050 ie in which the heavy lifting had to be done this decade. These were revised – first to 6% pa then 8% pa by Tim Flannery. The latest, presented by David Karoly at our forum require a 125% reduction by 2030. This means it is necessary to achieve not only a 100% reduction but to suck more out of the system as a whole by 2030. These targets will almost certainly be revised further as climate modelling becomes more accurate.

But as Will Steffen pointed out in his presentation, changes brought about by degradation and transformation of the biosphere are becoming more critical in determining climate outcomes. This requires further targets of a different kind which are not on any government agenda at this stage.

It was noted that we are approaching a number of tipping points where sudden changes in the earth system that will tip it into a hothouse trajectory which will lead to collapse and ultimately extinction of most of the life on this planet including homosapians. Once these tipping points occur there will be a cascading effect which will trigger other changes which will be mutually reinforcing. Once this happens it will be impossible to reverse. It will be like falling over a cliff that will put us on an irreversible hot house earth trajectory.

These trajectories are presented below.

We are fast approaching many of these tipping points. Scientists tell us what we do in this decade will determine our future. The implications for transport are profound. It is imperative that growth in transport emissions be reversed immediately and the sector must be carbon neutral before 2030, but few people have any idea what this means let alone how to achieve it. The only travel mode that achieves it at this time is active transport – walking and cycling. Public transport needs to lift its game. Whilst it may be more efficient than private road transport it is only so if it is well patronised and even then is a long way short of carbon neutral and we have no idea yet how this will be achieved in this sector.

The transport challenge is enormous and will not be achieved using traditional transport approaches. It will require a complete change in the transport system itself. What may have been considered models of excellence in the past will no longer be the case. But transport strategies will need to adapt to reflect broader social and economic changes which are reflected in the economy as a whole, and on this matter we are in uncharted waters.

Politicians and others might argue that this is mission impossible but they need to be reminded of the consequences of inaction and failure to achieve these targets. Specifying what needs to be done, however daunting that may be, is the easy bit. How to achieve it is the real challenge. This was discussed in our forum and whilst many ideas were discussed it only scratched the surface and must be the subject of serious and urgent discussion.

The forum video can be viewed on TfM’s YouTube channel using the following links: https://youtu.be/8guHY7jtWrU or https://youtu.be/HwklJF-dmlU

Videos of earlier presentations to the Sustainable Cities forum in 2009 by Prof Will Steffen and Dr Graham Turner can also be viewed on this chanel. These address fundamental issues which have been updated at the latest forum and remain relevant as benchmarks. Powerpoint presentations and papers can also be viewed on the Transport for Melbourne web site under forums.

climate change government policy public forum sustainability

The future we must plan for. Climate change forum

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 14/12/2020
No Comments on The future we must plan for. Climate change forum

The global environment is changing rapidly. This can be seen very clearly in the natural environment in the form of resource depletion, environmental degradation, pollution and species loss as well as climate change and global warming. These changes are all measurable and present profound challenges for the way societies live and the values, principles and structures that support them including the economic system and functioning of institutions and government.

Governments need to plan for the future but the starting point must be a realistic understanding of the scale and dimensions of these changes, what is driving them and their likely impacts. This will be the subject of this forum.

This subject has profound implications for societies throughout the world. It will be of critical interest to policy and decision makers in business and all levels of government as well as the broader community.

Tags 4 December 2020

climate change government policy public forum

The future we must plan for. Online event, Friday 4 December

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 17/11/2020
No Comments on The future we must plan for. Online event, Friday 4 December

Online event, Friday 4 December 1.30pm to 4.30pm

These changes are all measurable and present profound challenges for the way societies live and the values,
principles and structures that support them including the economic system and functioning of institutions and
government.

Governments need to plan for the future but the starting point must be a realistic understanding of the scale
and dimensions of these changes, what is driving them and their likely impacts. This will be the subject of this
forum.

This subject has profound implications for societies throughout the world. It will be of critical interest to
policy and decision makers in business and all levels of government as well as the broader community.

Speakers

David Karoly is Leader of the Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub in the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program, based in CSIRO. He is also an honorary Professor at the University of Melbourne. He is an internationally recognised expert on climate change and climate variability. Professor Karoly was a member of the National Climate Science Advisory Committee which delivered its final report “Climate Science for Australia’s Future” in 2019. During 2012-2017, he was a member of the Climate Change Authority, which provides advice to the Australian government on responding to climate change, including targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He has been involved in the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001, 2007, 2014 and 2021 in several different roles. He was elected as a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science in 2019 and was awarded the 2015 Royal Society of Victoria Medal for Scientific Excellence in Earth Sciences.

Will Steffen is an Earth System scientist. He is a Councillor on the publicly-funded Climate Council of Australia that delivers independent expert information about climate change, an Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University (ANU); Canberra, a Senior Fellow at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Sweden; and a Fellow at the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Stockholm. He is the chair of the jury for the Volvo Environment Prize; a member of the International Advisory Board for the Centre for Collective Action Research, Gothenburg University, Sweden; and a member of the Anthropocene Working Group of the Sub-committee on Quaternary Stratigraphy. From 1998 to mid-2004, Steffen was Executive Director of the International GeosphereBiosphere Program based in Stockholm. His research interests span a broad range within climate and Earth System science, with an emphasis on incorporation of human processes in Earth System modelling and analysis; and on sustainability and climate change.

Robyn Eckersley is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Melbourne. She has published widely in the fields of environmental politics, political theory and international relations, with a special focus on the ethics, politics and governance of climate change. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia (since 2007) and she received a Distinguished Scholar Award by the Environmental Studies Section of the International Studies Association in 2019.

Panel members

Adam Bandt MP

Sally Capp Lord Mayor City of Melbourne

Chair Roger Taylor, Chair Transport for Melbourne

advocacy government policy indigenous sacred sites

More Destruction of Sacred Sites – here in Victoria

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 30/10/2020
No Comments on More Destruction of Sacred Sites – here in Victoria

Destruction of sacred sites in the Pilbara caused international outrage and one would have expected governments at all levels in Australia to take extra precautions to ensure this is not repeated. Regrettably has not been the case. Here in Victoria the state government is proceeding with a highway project near Ararat that will result in the destruction of trees, including an ancestor tree which have been held sacred by indigenous people for centuries.
This action has, understandably caused significant community concern and outrage. As Senator Thorpe said, quoting from the Age October 28, 2020 “they (the Andrews government) are destroying our cultural heritage and likened the tree’s removal to Rio Tinto’s destruction of the Juukan Gorge in western Australia.

This project raises fundamental matters relating to procedures and proper process of a governance nature which has concerned TfM for some time. All projects must be designed to address essential needs in the most cost-effective manner and subjected to a rigorous environmental impact assessment. There will always be a number of options and these should be ranked and compared to a base case (essentially do nothing). If safety is the prime consideration, as the premier insists, are several ways in which this can be addressed but the project must always be implemented in a way that works within constraints – one of which is the need to protect sacred sites.

At the very least this could be addressed by imposing speed restrictions at critical sections of the route. This is standard procedure yet is clearly not part of the state government’s “solution”. It is also likely that these kinds of measures could be implemented at a fraction of the cost or minimal cost compared to the cost of this project. With respect to safety the accident rate is average for rural highway, not worse. The 11 deaths is a fake. This applies to Ballarat to Stawell, 123 km, for 5 years, not the 12.4 km stretch in question. We are advised the project only qualifies for federal funding on the basis of a 110 kph speed limit. In other words the project has been scaled up to qualify. Taking this into account the plaintiff developed an alternative route ‘the northern option’ which doesn’t impact the trees which regrettably the minister refuses to consider. In short this has become a politically driven project carried out without proper consideration of local interests or concerns or the need to carry it out in the most cost effective manner. Unfortunately this heavy handed approach to transport problems is typical of the approach used by this state government for many of its projects and is reflected in its “Big Build” program.

Of greater concern however is the fact that the Environmental Effects Statement for this project is heavily flawed. Vic Roads admitted this in a public statement in which they stated they had significantly underestimated the number of trees that would be removed in the project when submitting its EES. This was recorded in the judgement in the Supreme Court in 4th June 2020. This evidence should have invalidated the EES and provided grounds to stop the project. Despite the EES being flawed, it was ruled that it was legal for the EES to be the basis of his decision to approve the route.

The implications of this judgement are profound. It raises serious concerns about the way the EES is conducted and opportunities for it to be manipulated and abused to suit political objectives. As it stands the EES is a faux process and the Minister has complete powers even if the EES is found to be faulty/flawed or plain wrong. It has major implications for all major projects including the West Gate Tunnel Project, North East Link and others in the government’s Big Build program. Clearly the law needs to be changed.

It has become increasingly clear that the prime motivation for this project is not safety but the desire to secure federal funding for a capital works project. The cost of this is high and much of it borne by the local community including the destruction of a sacred site. It has also created public outrage and further loss of government standing within the community. All of this would have been avoided if the government had applied proper processes and sound governance procedures in the first place and been open and honest in its dealings with the local community.

Tags destruction, indigenous, sacred sites