Category: public transport

Categories
public transport train

The compelling need to operate our country passenger services more efficiently

The focus in our last blog was on the buffet service provided for regional rail trips. This blog provides a better understanding of the operating practices and the opportunity for capital, operating and maintenance cost savings and reduced environmental impacts.   

An efficient professionally run railway must tailor regional train sizes to fit the return train patronage out and back from the outstation. Qantas would not run its 2200 flight to Sydney with a 787 when a 717 would do the job and the same rationale must apply for the operation of Victoria’s country passenger rail service. 

History also teaches us the need to re-configure the fleet to suit the changing traffic task. But instead of using a mix of 3&4 car sets which allows trains to be run with 3,4, 6, 7, 8 or 9 cars with a range of car types, current VLine operating practices limit the options to multiples of a standard 3 car consist, with train sizes of 3, 6 and 9 cars for regional services.  

The Inter City VL service can standardize on 4 car sets seating 230, and attach commuter type cars within Geelong, Bendigo or Traralgon unbooked as required. Buying powered trailers, or even non powering trailers saves a lot on fuel, and fleet maintenance which is distance based per car. Under existing policies, buying more 3 car sets with driving stations makes no sense. This costs more per seat in capex, and $ tens of millions p.a. in wasted opex, fuel and maintenance costs in running 6 car sets around when 4 would be enough. VLine has more than enough trains with 106 VL sets. What we need now is longer VL train sets. 

In the case of the Inter City V/Locity for the Albury service the majority of trips require more than 152 seats. Under the current arrangement, with three car set modules this requires 6 cars.  By inserting a trailer car with 80 seats in the 3 car Inter City consist, train capacity increases to 230 all serviced by one buffet. Instead of 6 cars powering we have 4 cars powering consuming 2/3 fuel of a 6-car set. 

N sets built for the Inter City service with buffets were originally 3 cars seating 206.  As patronage increased we moved to a mix of 4 and 5 car N sets seating 236 and 292.  The 5 car sets were used on the am Inter City Ups and Evenings Downs. Ordering multiples of 3 car Inter City sets each seating 150 makes no sense based on past history of longer distance patronage.  

All of the above reflects a short-term efficiency issue that should be addressed immediately. The Commonwealth games scheduled for 2026 should provide additional incentive to fix it but the environmental imperative remains compelling. This includes the need to replace the existing fleet with green energy powered vehicles which will be the subject of a later blog.

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance best practice public transport train

Fundamental need to understand the business

Good transport policy must be based on a sound understanding of the transport service, particularly by the public service whose responsibility is to provide frank and fearless advice and a willingness of the Minister to listen. Whilst this may sound obvious, too often this is not the situation and is highlighted recently in a policy decision by the Minister in relation to catering services on Albury V/Locity service, with a critical response quoted below.

From Ben Carroll .. (in a written response to a CUSTOMER who had the temerity to enquire re Albury V/Locity and the elusive catering services)

“With regards to the configuration of the new standard gauge VLocity trains, the three-car modular configuration enables the greatest flexibility to scale up services with peak demand. This is better for the environment and provides a greater cost benefit to the taxpayer. When the Albury services consist of six cars, they will not operate with two buffets open simultaneously. One buffet will be open for part of the journey, with the second buffet to open for the second part of the journey, using the same Conductor.”

Quoting from a critical observer “Interesting, but lacks an understanding of how the buffet car is operated and its value to travellers. Implementation means one person will have to do multiple stocktakes counting “teaspoons” in both buffets (which typically takes 15’ to open up and another 15’ to take stock and close). So on the Up journey, the buffet will actually be open from Chiltern to Violet Town, then in the second set from Avenel to Donnybrook if you are lucky”. Our cynical observer continues:

“I can see the VLP blurb now ” The 0630 Albury – Melbourne service will have on-board catering arrangements which V/line has especially arranged for your travelling inconvenience.
1. Customers boarding at stations between Albury and Euroa in the trailing 3 carriages are requested to defer their hunger until Chiltern and be sure to have made all purchases by Violet Town. Those in the leading 3 cars – see below re BYO arrangements.
2. Customers boarding at stations between Euroa and Seymour in the leading 3 cars are asked to defer their hunger and purchase their refreshments only between Avenel and Donnybrook. Those in the trailing 3 cars – see below re BYO arrangements.
3. All customers joining at any station in either section of the train are offered the added convenience of bringing your own refreshments which may be consumed at any time. V/Line do hope you enjoy the flexibility these unique on-train catering arrangements offer !!!”. And further…..

“All totally avoidable if we had 6 sets as 4 car consists (seating 230) with one buffet car which would have been cheaper both capex wise; and opex wise than a mix of 3 & 6 car sets”.

With respect to environmental benefits, these could be increased by improving the quality of service to encourage more people to travel be train instead of car or coach supported by a marketing plan that encourages more people to travel off-peak. It would also improve VLine’s financial bottom line. The more important question is how will this service operate in a zero-emission world? How will the locomotives and other operations be powered? By electric power, or hydrogen? How will this be achieved in an environment in which energy, materials of all kinds and finance will become increasingly constrained? None of this will happen overnight – it needs a plan but time is running out. The carbon budget to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees will, at current trends be exhausted within six years and ten years to limit it to 2 degrees.

Sadly, none of the concerns raised about the buffet operations are rocket science, just plain common sense which is often lacking and reflected in poor or misguided policy. Sadly this situation is not confined to transport and occurs in all tiers of government. Much of this is a reflection of a civil service that has been run down over a long period of time, increasingly fragmented and lost much of its expertise and corporate memory as a result of contracting out to businesses or consultancies in the private sector. It is further weakened by restructuring, increasing politicisation and substitution of permanent employment with contract arrangements which can encourage advice the minister would like to hear, instead of frank and fearless advice which the minister may sometimes not like to hear and risk compromising the renewal of the employment contract.

There is no suggestion that parties involved in the situation outlined above did not set out to provide the best possible outcome. It is most likely another example of system failure which made this difficult. This has occurred with only minor consequences and can be easily rectified but there are many situations in which the community pays a huge price for poor policy decisions. There are no simple single fix solutions unfortunately. Addressing this requires fundamental system change and reform which is becoming increasingly urgent, particularly in response to the bigger environmental challenges confronting us now.

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance best practice car park public transport

Sunshine Super-Hub Still Fails

The following article by John Hearsch, President of Rail Futures Inc provides a clearer understanding of the importance of reinstating the standard gauge platform at Sunshine which has been omitted in the latest plan for the redevelopment of the rail station and was reported in an earlier blog. It highlights the importance of careful planning for all infrastructure projects.

The Rail Futures Institute reports that the failure to re-instate the former standard gauge platform as part of the forthcoming Sunshine station re-development will seriously impact North Eastern/Riverina travellers some years in advance of the Airport railway opening, in fact from as early as 2025 with the Metro 1 tunnel opening.  

Rail Futures President John Hearsch said “there will be a number of serious impacts on North Eastern/Riverina travellers from 2025 when the Metro 1 tunnel opens, unless the former standard gauge platform at Sunshine is re-instated by then.” From 2025 with the Metro 1 tunnel opening connectivity with Metro train services will alter for some suburban lines and the opportunity will present itself at Sunshine to vastly improve connectivity between other V/Line train services and also offer North Eastern/Riverina travellers direct connectivity to new high demand inner CBD locations adjacent to the five new Metro 1 stations.  

From Metro 1 opening in 2025 suburban trains proceeding from Sunbury through the CBD to Dandenong, Pakenham and Cranbourne will be routed via the NEW Metro 1 tunnel and five (5) new stations at ARDEN, PARKVILLE, STATE LIBRARY, TOWN HALL and ANZAC (at the Domain) to then continue via Caulfield to Dandenong, Pakenham and Cranbourne. As such Albury / Riverina passengers on standard gauge trains passing through Sunshine will NO LONGER be able to change at Southern Cross for stations on the Dandenong, Pakenham and Caulfield lines, e.g. travelling to Clayton for Monash University or Monash Medical Centre. Instead such passengers would have to change trains TWICE; first at Southern Cross and then again at Caulfield to reach Clayton. 

However, Mr Hearsch pointed out “Re-instatement of the standard gauge platform at Sunshine will allow Albury & Riverina passengers to simply transfer to Metro 1 trains at Sunshine maintaining direct connectivity from the North East and Riverina to the Dandenong, Pakenham and Cranbourne Lines with the one simple change of trains at Sunshine, maintaining direct access to Clayton.” Further the Rail Futures Institute says that failure to re-instate the standard gauge platform at Sunshine will amongst V/Line regional trains deny NORTH EAST / RIVERINA passengers of the benefit to access via Metro 1 the five new CBD stations at Arden, Parkville, State Library, Town Hall and Anzac.  

This is particularly important in respect of direct access at Parkville station to the adjacent Royal Melbourne Hospital, Peter Mc Callum Cancer Centre, Dental Hospital, Royal Children’s Hospital and Melbourne University Precinct. Mr Hearsch added “without this direct connectivity to Parkville, passengers will be forced to use taxis, or multiple tram routes from Southern Cross to reach these destinations and in doing so will incur up to 30 minutes of additional travel time.” “Such indirect travel with multiple changes being most inconvenient to those with young children and the elderly especially those with a disability.”  

Mr Hearsch also pointed out “That with a standard gauge platform at Sunshine, Albury / Riverina passengers would have the bonus convenience of direct interchange with frequent V/Line train services to/from Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo; allowing these travellers to save on average 30 – 40 minutes on their through journey ; by NOT having to go all the way into Southern Cross only to come out again through Sunshine on their Geelong, Ballarat or Bendigo train – as currently happens.”

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

Delimiting Electric Bikes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
best practice governance public transport zero emissions

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

Introduction

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

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

Elements of a zero-emission transport plan for Melbourne

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

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

2. A deadline for achieving it

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

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

5. Allocation of resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. What is the deadline?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Allocation of resources and priorities

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

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

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

  • numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards)

  • material stocks and flows

  • regulating negative feedback loops

  • driving positive feedback loops

  • information flows

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

  • the power of self-organisation

  • the goals of the system

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similar argument applies to the monitoring process etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Car park seen from above with many empty parking lots

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
public transport train tram

Rapid Public Transport Improvements at Minimal Cost

Yellow bus traffic sign painted on asphalt road.

Buses are the only form of public transport available for about two thirds of Melbourne and should be the ‘glue’ that ties the entire public transport system together. So it is critical Melbourne gets them working properly and this should be the starting point for an integrated public transport plan.

Transport for Melbourne ran forums in 2018 and 2018 aimed at improving Melbourne’s transport quickly and relatively cheaply by focussing on the things that really matter ie customer service. For transport this invariably means network coverage, convenience, comfort and safety. More specifically this is determined by route/network design, service frequency, journey times, timeliness of arrivals and departures, reliability of journey times and ability to make connections, and span of service over the day.

In the case of buses many of these service issues can be improved simply by modifying routes to make them more relevant as part of an integrated public transport network, providing priority on the roads to buses (and trams), improved maintenance, improving timetables, better customer information including signage, maps, modifications to the local environment such as improved lighting, urban design to improve accessibility, convenience and safety. Most of these measures are not costly and most require minimal investment in physical infrastructure. In fact the aim should be to maximise use of existing infrastructure and make it work more efficiently and more effectively. This logic should apply to all public transport modes. Smart cities address all of this as a matter of course – but not here in Melbourne.

There are signs the Minister for Public Transport is listening at last and the State government is beginning to focus more on buses and service issues more generally. These are issues that must be addressed if government is to provide the kind of public transport service Melbourne needs and make it comparable to world best practice. There is also an environmental imperative to do so. This must be reflected in budget allocations but they remain substantially inadequate and require a fundamental change in investment priorities ie instead of a focus on big build infrastructure to the things that really matter: customer service, but in a way that is designed to achieve zero emissions by 2030.

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

Achieving Zero Transport Emissions. Where is the plan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
public transport service train value for money

The Sunshine Rail ‘Super Hub’ Debacle

As reported by Timna Jacks in The Age 11th April, after much hype by the State government to redevelop Sunshine Station as a “super hub” that would in the words of the Premier “include retail, housing, all sorts of different options .. that can create one of those brand new spaces — a real boom for this area from economic activity” –that would fuel an economic boom in the working-class suburb, state and federal governments have now removed references to Sunshine station being a “super hub” and councillors have been advised that Sunshine and Albion stations would be “relegated to secondary priority”.   

Council is most unhappy ofcourse as are developers who have called for more transparency on plans along the rail corridor, where nine major developments are being proposed, including nearly 2500 residential units, two hotels and $230 million in construction activity.  

So perhaps all the fantasy and hype was simply another dream without foundation based on business as usual projections, creating the illusion that government was getting on with the job. it is time to take a reality check and look at some of the lessons that should be learnt from all of this.   

There is little doubt the impact of Covid has been profound and will have lasting impact although the extent remains unclear and it has yet to run its course. In the short term we might expect some recovery but what are the prospects for the longer term? Despite government declarations that covid has been a one in a hundred year event, we must expect more events like this in an increasingly uncertain world, and that these will be driven increasingly by environmental change and the social and economic impacts that follow.  

It is critical that government planning reflect this otherwise we will see more and more examples like this in which local communities are deceived by grand plans that at best will be short lived, a waste of money and do little to enable communities to adapt to the changing world around us.  

Fortunately the Sunshine Hub is a relatively small project and is dwarfed by mega infrastructure projects in the government’s Big Build program, all of which assume business as usual to continue within current planning horizons. Few have a soundly based business case. A business case for airport rail has been under way since 2018 and was supposed to be released last year, but is not yet complete. The largest, the Suburban Rail Loop has yet to be accurately costed and no business case has been carried out for it, but this has not stopped this government committing to it and already committing hundreds of $millions to it. The financial risk associated with all these monumental projects is huge. It is time the business case for all projects in the Big Build program are properly evaluated at the outset before any commitment is made for them to proceed. Once approved, all projects must be subject to proper planning and development processes before undertaking any works. It seems proper process has been abandoned on these projects. 

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
public transport service tram

Shortage of Tram Wheels Forces Cancellation of Some Melbourne Services

It was reported by the Herald Sun (April 13, 2021) that a global supply shortage (of wheels) has affected Melbourne’s trams and will force many services off the rails, with authorities “scrambling to source new wheels from abroad for the fleet”. According to the report, from this week, trams in need of replacements will be gradually taken off the network and could side-line up to 23 vehicles until shipments begin arriving at the end of the month. 

This problem would not have occurred had the wheels been made locally. It exposes the folly of relying extensively on foreign companies and supply chains for critical components that could and should be supplied locally. But why did it take Yarra Trams so long to identify this problem? It is a reminder of the importance of getting the basics right – of properly maintaining the existing system and having the systems in place to make sure it happens. 

It is also a reminder of the need to get our priorities right: to focus first on getting the existing system working as well as possible before embarking on glamorous new mega infrastructure projects. This includes many mundane and practical things that are critical for service delivery but do not provide opportunities for politicians’ names on brass plaques.

Link to article in Herald Sun
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
best practice governance government policy models of excellence public transport sustainability

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 4th 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 4th 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 

  1. 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    
  2. Reduce consumption of everything, particularly of natural resources 
  3. Stop degradation of the biosphere – every aspect of it and commence restoration as a top priority immediately 
  4. 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.

  1. 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 
  2. 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  
  3. 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  
  4. 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 
  5. 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  
  6. 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  
  7. 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   
  8. TfM does not support the recommendation to charge different PT modes separately. PT works as a system and pricing must reflect this.    
  9. 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    
  10. 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   
  11. Waste reduction is critical but it is important this be carried out comprehensively. There will be no simple single fix solutions  
  12. Increased tree canopy for our cities is important but is a first step towards a major habitat restoration program noted earlier in our submission 
  13. 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 
  14. 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 
  15. 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

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
best practice governance government policy models of excellence public transport sustainability

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.

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

Transport for Melbourne is a think tank and advocacy group of transport professionals whose mission is to promote an understanding of issues that Melbourne faces and how these can be better addressed.

Facebook Youtube Twitter Envelope
Subscribe to blog via email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts.

Join 45 other subscribers.

© 2021 Transport for Melbourne. All rights reserved.

Contact us