Social Inclusion and Transport Policy in Melbourne, Curitiba and the United Kingdom

Traditionally transport disadvantage, when it has been considered, has been approached as urban studies, economic or environmental studies phenomenon. Transport policies have been advanced as ways of improving citizens lives through increased amenity, reducing the cost of congestion and reducing carbon footprints. Although the social policy effects of transport were always present, they have been less explicit.

With more recent attempts to impose a social exclusion narrative on the problems of transportation there is hope that a more holistic understanding of transport policy can emerge.

Cancelled trains.... maybe its time to reform governance?

What a strange idea you might well say. Surely the response to what appears to be our annual hot day train cancellation festival might be to fix the trains, buy new ones, spend more on infrastructure or if your a bunch of bored (but lacking in ethics) Herald Sun hacks - sack the minister?

Maybe you may wish to consider any of the above (though I think you can tell I think little of sacking the minister - a ritual as old and bloody as parliamentary governance itself). However think the real issue that has been brought about is the lack of public understanding of who does what in our public transport system.

Here's something I prepared earlier. Its a little out of date as Jim Betts no longer heads the Public Transport Division.
This is how our public transport system is run as a public private partnership. Lines of authority, responsability are diffused and while DOT (Department of Transport) has more authority then its predecessor (DOI) did under the Kennett privatisation you can see why people question the current system.

Much of the heat and fury is about franchising and the failures of Connex, but I think that is dealing with the symptoms of the problem rather then the root cause.

We should go deeper and ask, are our institutions strong enough. Is there enough power and authority invested in the key authority here, the Public Transport Division? Is there enough stakeholder buy in? Is there enough freedom to argue the case for public/sustainable transport investment which has been so lacking in recent decades?

I would argue no, and that is why we should consider looking at creating a multi stakeholder transport authority for Melbourne. Not because they would do a better job (I am not one of the '30 people could run public transport in Melbourne' people) but because our current institutions have failed us and we should be exploring new approaches.

Victoria's new transport plan

Today the Victorian Government released their long awaited Transport Plan.

We won the east-west tunnel battle - there will be no road tunnel.

In fact there is much to like about the plan and it shows how far the forces for sustainable transport have come in the last ten years. Back then a document of this nature would have seen public transport relegated to a token train or tram extension or station upgrade along with all the roads projects.

There is however, much to dislike about the plan.

Number one is simply that this is not a plan or policy but a list of projects. Project based transport policy without a clear policy direction about how to manage transport demand is bad transport policy. The major policy imperative seems to be predict and provide - a mantra that says you should predict people's travel demand and then provide it.

The alternative approach, which has been largely ignored in the document, is transport demand management. That is the land use, sustainable transport infrastructure and service levels that encourage people to travel less via car and make more journey's via public transport, bike or their own two feet.

The Victorian Transport Plan (or VTP) does not chart out much of a vision for policy change. VTP is just a long list of projects which may, or may not, be delivered. Indeed the cost of many public transport projects are too high. For example, does anyone believe that a train extension to South Morang will cost $650 million. One can only conclude - absent of any other reasoning - that this cost includes significant road infrastructure which has been hidden on the public transport side of the ledger. One suspects that the road spending in the VTP is right on the money, if underestimated, and the public transport spending is overestimated, allowing the government spinners to argue that the spending ratio is 50/50 roads vs public transport when in fact the ratio is much higher.

The VTP also fails the believability test. Many of the projects won't be underway by 2010 and can't be justified as pump priming. The VTP depends greatly on federal funding and no indication is provided of what projects will be delayed if there is no federal funding (the cynic in me says public transport).

Buses and cyclists have been dudded majorly. The Smart Bus Blue orbital has been cancelled (the cynic in me reckons that it ain't a coincidence that it would run dead through a seat held by a major opponent of road building), and the green smart bus orbital has been delayed. Bus services have had an increase, but nothing like what is needed to achieve a quantum leap.

Cyclists have also been majorly dudded. This plan is pathetic on cycling and walking.

Last May I moved a resolution at ALP state conference calling for a metropolitan wide plan that would help us fight climate change, transport disadvantage and effect real change. This plan fails all these tests.

Urgency Resolution – Transport in Melbourne

Urgency Resolution – Transport in Melbourne

The Victorian Government’s Meeting Our Transport Challenges (MOTC) plan is investing in heavy rail infrastructure, creating opportunities for access to the public transport network in suburbs where it has till now been lacking, and is revolutionizing Melbourne’s bus system.

However, heavy employment and population growth has meant that the projections upon which MOTC was based on have now been superseded and welcomes the Victorian Government’s commitment to consider further investment in transport infrastructure into the future.

In light of the East West Needs Assessment Study findings, and having regard to its limited scope, a new transport action plan is needed for Melbourne.Given the role that transport policy plays in improving social inclusion, mobility, sustainability and economic progress, such as action plan that builds on the success of MOTC is urgently needed.

Motion

That State Conference resolves that it calls upon the Victorian government to address the pressing needs of the whole metropolitan area and calls for a moratorium on the announcement of any new major transport infrastructure, until the preparation of a metropolitan transport action plan that:

• Addresses transport disadvantage by providing mobility and choice – especially in outer Melbourne
• Reaffirms Labor’s 20/2020 target – 20 percent of all journeys by public transport in metropolitan by 2020
• Maintains and enhances the livability of Melbourne
• Addresses compelling capacity constraints in the rail system
• Accelerates smart bus improvements and upgrades the minimum bus service standards, and,
• Addresses the need for the transport sector to make a major contribution to meeting Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.

Public Transport Partnerships: An Evaluation

I have written an evaluation of Public Transport Partnerships for my Economics and Public Policy class at the University of Melbourne.

Its a Adobe Acrobat PDF and is available here.

Can we build our way out of congestion

I say no to a cross city tunnel for Melbourne....

Together with Carlo Carli MP, I have written a submission to the Eddington Review on Melbourne's East-West transport needs.

Here is our executive summary....

• The East West Needs Assessment study, should it recommend increased road space, could damage not only public transport dominance in inner Melbourne, but also Melbourne’s liveability.
• An additional east west link, over and above the existing Monash-Westgate link, would be a misallocation of economic resources, costing up to and over $10 billion.
• Public transport is the dominant transport mode in inner Melbourne.
• Private and freight transport largely does not travel east-west from the Eastern freeway, rather it dissipates into the inner north and towards the CBD.
• There is capacity to increase rail’s share of the metropolitan Melbourne freight market, thereby relieving congestion in the inner suburbs and aiding economic efficiency.
• Current methods of imagining and measuring the costs of congestion are unrealistic and not useful for policy makers. Methodologies assume that free flow conditions beings about maximum efficiency –this methodology favours road space expansion over road space management.
• A more realistic measure places reliability, and managing congestion higher, recognising that increasing road space merely induces demand and is an intervention designed to increase the private car’s modal share, thus threatening the viability of public transport and the liveability of the inner city.
• A tunnel therefore is not neededand would be counterproductive threatening the liveability of inner Melbourne.
• Better solutions involve increasing the capacity and connectivity of public transport and rail freight to handle the transport task.
• Strategies that ensure more efficient use of road space would provide greater social benefit compared to the cost of a new link particularly once you add the full cost of externalities such as congestion around on and off ramps, down stream congestion in inner Melbourne, pollution emissions, parking costs, accidents, urban sprawl and other environmental costs.
• The future in Melbourne shouldnot be on spending billions on road building through our inner city but demand and mobility management and ensuring a more efficient modal share for both goods and people.