Category: public transport

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.

best practice governance models of excellence public transport sustainability

Curitiba – Once a model of sustainability in the broadest sense

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

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

Integrated Transport System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags Brazil, Curitiba

advocacy best practice public transport service

Why is “Advocacy” so Important

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 30/11/2020
No Comments on Why is “Advocacy” so Important

Some might think our governments are elected to govern for all of us in the community interest and there is no need for community advocacy. The reality is governments tend not to lead but lag in response to community concerns etc and rely heavily on community feedback and respond to pressure from a wide range of interest groups. These interests range from genuine public interest – often for the “many” to naked rent seeking self interest of a few. It is an environment in which there is strong competition for ideas and too often it is the few who are winning.

This concern applies in all areas of government today and at all levels. It certainly applies in transport. Transport for Melbourne believes the starting point for effective advocacy is a thorough understanding of the issues – how the transport operates – as a system, reasonable expectations of it based on accepted standards of best practice, where it is failing, reasons for suboptimal performance, actions that can be taken to address this and actions to overcome forces blocking change.

Transport for Melbourne tends to focus on broader principles and strategic opportunities for change. If change is to occur it has to take place at this level and become embodied in government policy and strategic plans supported by appropriate funding. But this requires a change in government mindset. First priority must be to change this mindset. But this requires community pressure for change which in turn requires a change in the community mindset.

Successful advocacy therefore requires action at both levels and it needs people to champion its cause. To be effective It also needs to be conducted in a way that is understood by people from a wide range of backgrounds, recognizing there is no single simple message that makes sense for everyone. It also requires attention to detail on specific projects and a capacity to raise issues, communicate them in the public interest and provide a unified response by advocacy groups.

This is a role that has been taken up by Transport for Everyone (T4e). TfM was instrumental in T4e’s establishment in 2017. It is now an incorporated body with its own Charter and representatives from a number of advocacy groups including TfM. The list is growing with increased standing at a political level. Details of T4e are included on this web site under publications, and includes a link to its own blog. This will provide readers with a broader coverage of transport issues, typically at a more detailed level.

What are the prospects for success? History suggests a high level of success on important issues. Women’s rights, Same sex marriage, abortion, tobacco, early development child development and many more indicate there is every prospect for change if the community feels strongly enough and committed enough to force change it can happen. Our view is transport has such profound social, economic and environmental implications it is important to get it right. If this was sufficiently well understood communities throughout Australia will stand up and demand change.

best practice models of excellence public transport service value for money

Zurich – a model of transport excellence

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 23/11/2020
No Comments on Zurich – a model of transport excellence

A model that provides valuable lessons that could be adapted and applied in Melbourne – if we had the mindset to do so.

Zurich is Switzerland’s largest city. The municipality has approximately 409,000 inhabitants, the urban agglomeration 1.315 million and the Zürich metropolitan area 1.83 million. Zurich is consistently ranked as one of the most liveable and sustainable cities in the world. Ranking criteria include life expectancy, safety, education, hygiene, health care, culture, energy consumption, greenhouse emissions, green space, recreation, political-economic stability, public transport and access to goods and services. The city is also recognised for a number of sustainable achievements in investment efficient and renewable energies, a sustainable public transport system and a willingness to increase public awareness of environmental issues.

Its public transport has been accepted as a model of excellence for many years. The population use public transport more than twice as much as the populations of most other cities – only Hong Kong has higher usage rates. The Zurich Transport Authority provides a public transport system that services the entire Canton not just within the city of Zurich itself but to outlying townships/villages within the Canton covering an area of 1840 sq km.

Zurich’ public transport system is serviced by train, trams, buses and ferries. It is structured around a set of radial rail and tram lines intersected by many bus routes which are generally circumferential providing a web for multidirectional transfers.

The network is clearly defined and designed for a wide range of travel needs – not just to and from work or school, it enables people to travel anywhere almost any time within the Canton including outlying villages. But whilst the design of the network is important it is the way it is operated that makes Zurich so outstanding.

A number of principles have been adopted that ensures its success.

It has a simple and stable interconnected network with a structure and timetable that is easy to learn and understand, that is quick and convenient to use, based on repeatable easily remembered service frequencies of 7.5’,15’ and 30’. This largely eliminates the need for timetables on most lines – although these are provided nonetheless.
High frequency services are provided throughout the day and evening which are quick and reliable.
These are important factors but the key principle is acceptance that many, indeed probably the majority of travelers will need to transfer between services to access their selected destination, so easy transfers and coordination of timetables are essential.

Two methods are used for coordinating transfers
high frequency connections
pulse or timed clock face times for lower frequency services – a Swiss innovation that probably provided a break-through in public transport thinking.

High and reliable travel speeds for all modes of travel are essential to compete with the car but they are critical to guarantee connections and provide a timetable for the network as a whole.

This is achieved by

simplifying routes, making them as straight and direct as possible
making transfers as easy as possible at the connection points and
providing priority on roads to trams and buses, and it is this factor that really underpins its success.

Ernst Joos, former Deputy Director Zurich Transport Authority provides three messages concerning Zurich’s transport policy.

First message

If you ask the inhabitants of a town which transport policy should be followed, the citizens will not choose the car. They are much more intelligent than politicians and other opinion leaders would believe and have higher values than merely standing still in a traffic jam.

Second message

The future of urban transport policy lies not in expansion but in the intelligent use of the existing traffic areas. The objective of ensuring mobility for people when travelling in work and shopping and during leisure time requires imaginative urban traffic management based on modern information technology.

Third message

With regard to urban transport policy, economy and ecology are by no means contradictory. Zurich is living proof of the fact that a transport policy which promotes public transport at the expense of private motor transport results in considerable economic development of the city.

On the Zurich Model Joos writes

“Readers will no doubt expect a representative from well-to-do Switzerland to present a solid and correspondingly expensive answer to city traffic problems. However I am going to disappoint you. Zurich’s transport policy is worthy of attention because:

It is not spectacular but efficient
It costs little and protects the environment
It imposes self-restraint on politicians but the population accepts and participates in it.”

Tags Zurich

best practice models of excellence public transport service value for money

Transport models of excellence

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 16/11/2020
No Comments on Transport models of excellence

Transport models of excellence

What are they and why don’t we learn from them?

This is a question I asked frequently when I worked for the Public Transport Corporation many years ago. There are number of cities we could learn from. Many of these have been confronted with similar problems to Melbourne and achieved far better transport outcomes in the process. Some are now accepted as models of best practice.

These cities vary in population, size/area, and structure, support people with different cultures and can be seen in most continents of the world. Principles and practices used by these cities are well understood. Many attempts have been made to introduce transport experts from them to policy makers in Melbourne but have consistently failed – mainly for political reasons. Whilst these cities now have to cope with disruption and longer- term impacts of covid and will also have to adapt in restructured carbon neutral economy they are better placed than most to do so and will continue to provide valuable lessons that can be applied in Melbourne. I will discuss some of these cities over the coming weeks.

governance public transport service value for money

Public Transport – Considerable Scope for service improvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags State Government

governance public transport service value for money

Understanding Transport – it is about service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags State Government

advocacy public policy sustainability governance freeways governance motorways public transport traffic congestion value for money

Does expanding motorways really reduce congestion?

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 26/10/2020
No Comments on Does expanding motorways really reduce congestion?

The short answer to this question is no, and they usually result in increased emissions.

The evidence is presented in the following article by Simon Kingham, professor University of Canterbury NZ which was published in The Conversation Au edition 7th October 2020

Historically, building more and wider roads, including motorways, was seen as a way of reducing congestion. This in turn is supposed to lower emissions.

Fuel efficiency is optimised for driving at around 80kmh and it decreases the faster you go above that. But with speed limits up to 110kmh, people are likely to drive above 80kmh on motorways — and this means building and expanding motorways will actually increase emissions.

Many countries, especially in Europe, are now looking to lower speed limits partly to reduce emissions.

New roads, new drivers

The most significant impact new and expanded motorways have on congestion and emissions is the effect on the distance people travel.

Historically, engineers assumed cars (and more pertinently their drivers) would behave like water. In other words, if you had too much traffic for the road space provided, you would build a new road or expand an existing one and cars would spread themselves across the increased road space.

Unfortunately, this is not what happens. New road capacity attracts new drivers. In the short term, people who had previously been discouraged from using congested roads start to use them.

In the longer term, people move further away from city centres to take advantage of new roads that allow them to travel further faster.

This is partly due to the “travel time budget” — a concept also known as Marchetti’s constant — which suggests people are prepared to spend around an hour a day commuting. Cities tend to grow to a diameter of one-hour travel time.

The concept is supported by evidence that cities have sprawled more as modes of transport have changed. For example, cities were small when we could only walk, but expanded along transport corridors with rail and then sprawled with the advent of cars. This all allows commuters to travel greater distances within the travel time budget.

Building or expanding roads releases latent demand — widely defined as “the increment in new vehicle traffic that would not have occurred without the improvement of the network capacity”.

This concept is not new. The first evidence of it can be found back in the 1930s. Later research in 1962 found that “on urban commuter expressways, peak-hour traffic congestion rises to meet maximum capacity”.

A considerable body of evidence is now available to confirm this. But, despite this indisputable fact, many road-improvement decisions continue to be based on the assumption that extra space will not generate new traffic.

If you build it, they will drive

A significant change occurred in 1994 when a report by the UK Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Appraisal confirmed road building actually generates more traffic.

In New Zealand, this wasn’t acknowledged until the Transport Agency’s 2010 Economic Evaluation Manual, which said:

[…] generated traffic often fills a significant portion (50–90%) of added urban roadway capacity.

Some congestion discourages people from driving (suppresses latent demand), but with no congestion traffic will fill road space over time, particularly in or near urban areas.

Interestingly, the opposite can also work. Where road space is removed, demand can be suppressed and traffic reduces without other neighbouring roads becoming overly congested.

One of the best examples of this is the closure of the Cheonggyecheon Freeway in the middle of Seoul, South Korea.

When the busy road was removed from the city, rather than the traffic moving to and congesting nearby roads, most of the traffic actually disappeared, as Professor Jeff Kenworthy from Curtin University’s Sustainable Policy Institute notes.

This suppression of latent demand works best when good alternative ways of travel are available, including high-quality public transport or separated cycle lanes.

The short answer to the question about road building and expansion is that new roads do little to reduce congestion, and they will usually result in increased emissions.

Tags failure of governance, State Government, Victoria

advocacy public policy sustainability governance governance public transport traffic congestion value for money

Traffic congestion – Is it a problem?

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 19/10/2020
No Comments on Traffic congestion – Is it a problem?

Congestion is frequently raised as a huge cost in our cities and it is often promoted in fearful terms like the following : Cities afraid of death by congestion.

The first paragraph reads: “A plan to widen part of Interstate 10 in metropolitan Phoenix from 14 lanes to 24 lanes is the USA’s latest giant superhighway proposal designed to ease the kind of gridlock that some planners say could stunt economic growth.”

Similar messages are being conveyed to government by companies that have a vested interest in promoting similar outcomes in Melbourne. These include Transurban, engineering construction companies, the road lobby and others who have the government’s ear and are defining the transport ‘problem’ in their terms ie in terms of congestion and potential gridlock, and solutions being to build more, larger, and vastly expensive road projects, user pays solutions and public private partnerships promoted with very slick marketing. It also includes finance companies, superannuation funds and others looking for “rent seeking” opportunities.

The current political mindset has been described by Prof Graham Currie “as a negative spiral which focuses on congestion ‘solutions’ in which politicians claim we will solve congestion with big investment. Expectations are raised (despite the fact that congestions can never be solved), congestion gets worse leading to credibility loss , followed by a positive approach which admits congestion can never be solved but will address worst impacts with more big investment thereby lowering expectations and credibility gain because congestion outcomes are as expected”.

But is congestion such a bad problem anyway. Transport analysts such as David Metz in the UK have shown that congestion can have a positive function, that there is no such thing as free flow of traffic (at average 80kph) in a city the size of Melbourne, and that congestion points filter traffic on to narrow city streets preventing terminal gridlock.

This view is supported by Wesley Marshall and Eric Dumbaugh Wesley E. Marshall & Eric Dumbaugh, 2020. “Revisiting the relationship between traffic congestion and the economy: a longitudinal examination of U.S. metropolitan areas“, and their findings that ” current concerns about traffic congestion negatively impacting the economy may not be particularly well founded. “Our findings suggest that a region’s economy is not significantly impacted by traffic congestion.

In fact, the results even suggest a positive association between traffic congestion and economic productivity as well as jobs,”. “Without traffic congestion, there would be less incentive for infill development, living in an location-efficient place, walking, biking, and transit use, ridesharing, innovations in urban freight, etc,” “And if your city doesn’t have any traffic congestion, there is something really wrong.”

If we are to get better transport outcomes in Melbourne we need to change the current political mindset. Instead of thinking about congestion as a cost, we need to persuade government that traffic congestion is an indication that we are not using the transport system efficiently and encourage it to develop policies and strategies to make this happen.

This strategy also avoids the risk of stranded assets as the economy and transport environment change in a post covid world, when social and economic conditions remain depressed and there is greater environmental pressure for change.

Tags failure of governance, State Government, Victoria

advocacy public policy sustainability governance governance public transport traffic congestion value for money

Why Is Melbourne’s Transport System So Costly?

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 12/10/2020
No Comments on Why Is Melbourne’s Transport System So Costly?

This has been the subject of extensive research over many years and it is not possible to discuss it in detail in this blog, other than in general terms.

The main reason our transport system is so costly is that it promotes the least efficient modes of travel and transport ie motor vehicles for personal travel and most of the freight task (some of which could be transported more efficiently on rail). This in turn demands more infrastructure to support them and has been supported by city planning and development policies, particularly since WW2.

This problem is compounded when precious funds are wasted on infrastructure we don’t need or would not need if we operated our transport system more efficiently but must still be managed and maintained at considerable cost. Some of this infrastructure takes up valuable city space that could be used for other purposes, such as housing or community facilities including parks or growing food. Transport infrastructure – particularly roads and motorways also contribute to the “heat island” effect by elevating surface temperatures which increase stress, service disruptions and reduce liveability in cities – particularly during heat waves, the frequency and intensity of which is expected to increase in the future.

Melbourne’s transport is also costly because of the way we use it. Our transport fleet needs to be more efficient with a greater focus on fuel economy and operated in a way that minimizes pollution – air, noise and groundwater. We need to minimize impacts on human health; not just from pollution but also from accidents and fatalities. Transport related health impacts manifest themselves in a wide range of diseases: cardiovascular, neurological, respiratory, muscularskeletal diseases, and severe mental health impacts. Many of these the result of physical inactivity more likely to occur in car dependent societies such as Melbourne. There are environmental impacts as well and an imperative to reduce greenhouse emissions.

These costs are under reported and tend to be dismissed as the price we pay for progress but they have a profound impact – not just at a personal level but for the economy and livability of the city as a whole. Reducing them requires good governance in the form of sound policy, strategic intervention, appropriate regulation, and effective administration to make it happen. Some cities do a far better job managing them than Melbourne so there is considerable scope for improvement.

There are also costs which some economists and politicians exaggerate such as congestion and use it to justify major infrastructure works, particularly for building new motorways. This will be the subject of my next blog.

Tags failure of governance, inefficiency, State Government, Victoria

advocacy public policy sustainability governance governance public transport value for money

Beware China’s Belt and Road for Melbourne

Post author By Roger Taylor
Post date 06/10/2020
No Comments on Beware China’s Belt and Road for Melbourne

We have long argued that infrastructure investment must be justified in its merits – on the basis of need (our collective needs and affordability), and fitness for purpose in the most cost effective manner. Further, that the development of infrastructure programs and projects should be the responsibility of relevant government departments as part of a well prepared strategic plan. It should not be used as a political football for other purposes but unfortunately that is exactly what it has become, particularly in Victoria by becoming linked with China’s One Belt One Road (“OBOR”) project.

Premier Andrews has argued that this is a way to increase jobs. That in itself is inappropriate – there are far more effective ways to create jobs and as I have explained in earlier blogs, using it for this purpose always runs the risk of it being used for political purposes for poorly conceived projects developed in haste that we don’t need.

More important concerns have been raised (The Age 6th October 2020) however by Paul Monk, a former head of China analysis at Australia’s Defence Department about “OBOR” being used to subordinate us into China’s sphere of influence in a way that could impose unacceptable political and economic risks. In the same article Senator Patrick said the freedom of Information documentation revealed “an extraordinary case of a state government pursuing a shadow foreign trade policy, quite separate and independent from the federal government”.

Use of grand infrastructure projects to secure political advantage by major powers is not new. The US through the agency of powerful multinational corporations pursued this for decades, convincing poor countries to accept huge development loans to ensure they were forever in debt to US companies, but often ended up taking over strategic assets when promised benefits failed to materialize forcing these countries to default on their loans. Some political analysts believe China’s “OBOR” has similar objectives.

Whilst the Victorian economy may be more robust than many of the third world countries seduced by these schemes, it is vulnerable nevertheless. Business cases for the Victorian mega projects which would be candidates are expected to provide very poor returns and I have outlined this in earlier blogs. These returns, miserable as they may be will be further diminished as we enter a covid induced recession or worse and recovery may take many years. It may also expose us financially – not just for annual repayments which could be onerous but more so when the debt needs to be repaid. Political implications in this case could be profound. We believe these risks are unacceptable and the federal government has every right to be concerned.

Tags belt and road, china, failure of governance, State Government, Victoria