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.

Moreland Intergrated Transport Strategy

A while ago I made a submission to the public consultation on the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy.

Submission on Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy

Thankyou for the opportunity to comment on the draft Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS). Transport planning is a neglected part of our local planning policy regime and the gap between the old MITS (1998) and this new strategy of over ten years is one that should never be repeated.

All too often transport planning is ignored or neglected when we make decisions about our local neighbourhoods. Decision makers and planners are seduced by land use, height and other planning issues and come to transport near the end of planning processes. This is not a criticism solely aimed at local processes. It can be said with some authority that the neglect of transport planning lies at the heart of most metropolitan wide planning schemes in Melbourne from the 1954 Planning Scheme right through to Melbourne 2030.

Shoppers and how they travel

Every example you look at from around the world where clearways have been created 24 hours a day, retail trade goes up. That is the reality of it.
- Peter Moore, Executive Director, UITP (International Association of Public Transport)

The build up in the popularity of trains has now been matched by increases in patronage for trams . This is creating an increased demand from the travelling public for more services, bigger and modern trams, and more reliable services.

Melbourne is unusual in two regards. We have the largest tram system in the world. And we have a system that largely runs on inner suburban streets unseparated in large parts from other forms of traffic.

This creates conflicts for road space – particularly in Melbourne’s case given the split in responsibilities and a desire to protect suburban strip shopping by providing parking access on main streets.

Boosting for Fringe Dwellers

Bob Birrell, and People and Place do it again.

a report published in Monash University's People and Place journal warns that building apartments along tram routes would result in chaos on Melbourne's roads.

Only a small proportion of people living in those apartments would catch public transport, say the report's authors, Bob Birrell from Monash University and David McCloskey and Rose Yip from research agency Pathfinder Solutions.

Their contention is that Professor Rob Adams plan to get more housing along rail, tram and high frequency bus corridors is doomed to failure because only one fifth of people in suburbs like Brunswick use public transport.

Anyone who has any interest in sustainable and equitable transport knows that public transport is only half the story.

Just looking quickly at the state suburb of Brunswick (3056) and those who used only one method of travel to work we find that yes, 52 percent of people did use a car to get to work. 29 percent used public transport. but 10.3 percent rode a bike and 6.1 percent walked.

It seems to me that People and Place ignore the role of cycling and walking in the journey to work equation.

It is true to say that building on public transport corridors isn't the whole answer. But neither is it true to say that linking jobs to public transport (or vice versa) is the whole answer.

We need both.

Public housing, paranoia and mirages

Jason Dowling in The Age today asked this question...

When did Melbourne become a society of intolerant, closed communities filled with misplaced paranoia about providing public housing for people in desperate need of it?

Its a question well asked. Related to this is a few years ago I was attended a planning consultation for a development in southern end of Coburg. The residents were discussing their objections to this development, mostly on considered planning grounds when a man stood up and told us that he did not want this five storey development near him because of the "people who would live there". By this he meant renters who he perceived as poor and not like him. Its an attitude that annoys greatly.

One of my facebook friends did note that Jason failed to get stuck into the market and real estate agents for over playing the idea that public housing harms housing values. He has a strong point - the root of the problem is our belief that increased housing values increases our overall wealth, though I suspect that in relative terms this is not entirely accurate.

New Clearways on Sydney Road

Today the new clearways came into operation on Sydney Road. I won't try and describe their operation (I will leave that dog's breakfast to Vicroads) but I do want to offer a brief critique of the policy, Keeping Melbourne Moving.

Keeping Melbourne Moving is about extending clearway times on key routes heading to the CBD. Many of these routes are as well as arterials, are also tram routes and local roads. The rationale presented is that we need to relieve congestion on these routes to make it easier for public transport to operate.

The problem with this rationale is that the policy fails to address this point. Looking at Sydney Road in Brunswick all this policy does is further alienate on street parking along the road (not entirely bad in my book) while doing nothing to separate trams from private motor vehicle traffic.

Campaigning for better public transport

Here is a nice example of a film explaining the logic behind better priority for our road based public transport.

Peninsula Link: some questions

Peninsula Link, previously known as the Frankton bypass, will go ahead. Which is a pity.

As we know, freeways like the Peninsula Link do nothing to solve transport congestion, make traffic flow easier, or make life better for people around Frankston. But it is being sold as a project that will improve travel times and provide an economic stimulus.

I have some questions

1. If its such a great economic stimulus why did the Federal Government not support it?
2. Why is this a priority? Eastlink in trouble maybe?

This is an incredible unsatisfactory project and right now, in my opinion, it smacks more of corporate welfare then economic stimulus or good transport planning.

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.

Is that a newspaper or RACV propaganda?

Today's Herald Sun was breathtaking for its aggressive rhetoric on the prospect of the State Government not immediately proceeding on building the Eddington tunnel/freeway through the inner north and inner west.

There were four articles published (here, here, here and here), of which three of them were pro road building. The Herald Sun has clearly dropped any attempt to report and has moved into the realm of propaganda.

Melbourne Port Tunnel

Articles in THE AGE and HERALD SUN this morning suggest that the government is proposing to construct a Melbourne Port Tunnel.

If, and its a big if, the Melbourne Port Tunnel has tight policy objectives around improving freight access to the Port of Melbourne then this is a good thing. If its a back door way to starting the Eddington freeway/tunnel connecting the Eastern Freeway to the Western suburbs then it is decidedly bad.

One model of ensuring that the Melbourne Port Tunnel is a freight tunnel is to look at the model of the Dublin Port Tunnel. Here is something I wrote earlier about the Dublin Port Tunnel.

The Dublin Port tunnel was opened in December 2006 and provides a link between the Port of Dublin and the M50 ring road around Dublin.

The policy objective of the tunnel is to remove heavy traffic from city streets providing a freight designated route.However, the authorities did not want the tunnel to become an alternative commuter route so undermining the freight objectives.

To this end the tunnel is free for heavy vehicles, buses and disability vehicles. To discourage commuters from using the tunnel, small vehicles are heavily tolled, 12 euros in the morning peak, 6 euros for the rest of the day and 3 euros in the late night and on weekends.

The City of Dublin, following the opening of the port tunnel has placed a ban on Heavy Goods Vehicles entering the central city (our equivalent is the CBD).

The Melbourne Port Tunnel should follow the lead of Dublin, and toll small passenger/commuter vehicles.

For whom the road tolls

Who would have guessed it? Sydney... congestion pricing?

But that's what has happened today, as NSW has announced peak toll road prices. Its a no brainer. It raises revenue (tick), manages congestion (tick), and if it helps get people out of their cars its good for their health (tick) and the environment (tick).

No doubt conservative interests will decry it as a money grab, but it must be done. Lets hope the notoriously fickle NSW Labor party does not fold on this one.

As the rich get richer

The more I examine the greens transport plan the more I am convinced that it is a plan to make the transport rich, richer and the transport poor, poorer.

But consider, overlay areas with a high green vote say (20% or more) and these are the transport rich areas.

So how is this plan not a pig barrel of pork?

Greens Transport Plan is not the plan Brunswick needs

"The Greens transport plan is a wacky grab bag of silly ideas."

Labor supported candidate for South Ward, Christopher Anderson said the Greens have failed to develop sensible transport policy.

"There is no overall strategy. No commitment to improving transport in the transport poor areas of Moreland. And no understanding of the complexities of a modern transport system."

"What we need in Brunswick is not pie in the sky plans but more trams, more trains, better bus frequencies, as well as better bicycle and walking infrastructure. The Greens transport paper fails on this measure"

“The Moreland Greens can’t deliver this plan. Local Government doesn’t run trains, trams or buses.”

“Voters need to know that this plan is a con.”

Mr Anderson said that some specific proposals would make transport worse in Moreland.

"Plans by the Moreland Greens to cut off Brunswick West residents from the CBD and remove residential parking from Brunswick Road are not what Brunswick West residents need" Mr. Anderson said today.

"As a resident of Brunswick West I don't want the route 55 tram line running to North Melbourne station. I don't want to be cut off from the CBD."

"The Greens also propose an expensive new tram line along Brunswick Road. Brunswick Road is already congested and narrow. Building a tram line and giving trams priority means those residents along Brunswick Road will no longer be able to park outside their house"

The Moreland Greens need to be made accountable for their plans which ignore bus routes. Will they upgrade the Dawson Street/Glenlyon Road to Smart Bus standard (as is planned by the State Government)? Will service improvements for the Albion Street bus go ahead?

Labor will shortly release its Policy, including its transport plan.

"Labor's plan will focus on all modes of transport. We won't be ignoring buses, cyclists or pedestrians."

"We will produce a plan that is sensible, professional, and a plan that works."

About Christopher Anderson

Christopher Anderson has been a strong advocate of sustainable transport within the ALP. He is a key member of the ALP's Transport Policy Committee and has written a number of submissions opposing the cross city road tunnel. In May he moved a resolution calling on the Victorian Government to develop a transport plan at the ALP State Conference, which the Brumby Labor Government is now doing.

Christopher lives in West Brunswick and for his local area he wants bigger trams on route 55 (to ease the squeeze), more bus services on Brunswick Road, Dawson Street and Albion Street and better bike lanes and footpaths.

Submission on East West Transport Options

On Tuesday 15th July the Victorian Government closed submissions from teh public on East West transport options. Below is my submission commenting on the recommendations and outlining some specific issues as pertains to the suburb where I live - Brunswick.

Transport policy in Victoria requires significant choices if we are to continue to aspire to be the world’s most liveable city, successfully combat social disadvantage and deal with the transition to a low carbon economy.

The East West Needs Assessment report correctly identifies that there is no silver bullet to growing congestion. It also argues that transport cannot be solved by championing one mode over another. The report finds that all modes are likely to be operating close to capacity in the near future and we face very high investment costs should we chose to increase capacity. The disappointment is that the report has little emphasis on behavioural change or the impact of pricing and other means of demand management.

I welcome and support the following:

• Upfront commitment to increased investment in public transport
• The commitment to providing high quality public transport links to the transport poor western suburbs
• Commitment to addressing rail capacity
• Commitment to high quality link to the university/hospital/biotechnology precinct – the source of a large number of jobs and education
• Strong commitment to supporting cycling as a key transport mode

The East West Needs Assessment report, however, falls into old traps. The study team has relied far too much on the discredited predict and provide model of road planning, and his modelling incorrectly assumes that the massive growth in public transport trips in inner Melbourne (and the decline in car trips) a temporary aberration. The Eddington report’s emphasis is mainly on new infrastructure spending - the benefits of which needs to be carefully analysed and assessed.

East West Rail Tunnel

Public transport patronage is growing rapidly due to employment and population growth in inner Melbourne, buoyant economic conditions and price instability for petrol. Our rail system is almost at capacity and we need a once in a generation project to transform it.

The construction of a east west rail tunnel will enable the Victorian Government to plan for new rail lines and extensions in outer suburban areas in the future. It will link the heavy rail system to important employment locations such as the University/Parkville precinct.

Cross City Road Tunnel

I oppose the constriction of the cross city road tunnel. Its unnecessary, backed by speculative demand forecasts, and is not viable as a PPP.

Roads do not solve congestion. There is no analysis of induced demand caused by increasing road space. And the reports proposal for an east-west cross city freeway does not recognise this essential fact. There is not the traffic volume to sustain this tunnel as a Public Private Partnership (PPP) except at the expense of building interchanges on inner city streets. There is no analysis of toll avoidance which has significantly impacted on toll roads in NSW.

No demand management

One of our more powerful tools in managing congestion is demand management. Yet the East West Needs Assessment does not recommend any demand management techniques. It’s the major omission in the report.

But what about climate change?

The greatest challenge of the 21^st century is climate change. It is not clear why you would address climate change by building more roads. While the East West Needs Assessment acknowledges the reality of climate change, it fails to walk the walk, instead placing faith in emerging automobile technology.

The East West Needs Assessment reports failure therefore is one of not breaking free of a business as usual response. The plan:

• is NOT a plan for carbon constrained future
• is NOT a plan for dealing with peak oil and the effects of higher petrol prices
• does NOT address the poverty of transport options in Melbourne’s outer suburbs – particularly the outer north and outer east
• makes no real commitment to the government’s modal shift target of 20 percent public transport journeys by 2020.
• Misses opportunities to get more port freight onto rail

Opportunities for Change – some alternatives

So what are the alternatives? Well firstly don’t build the cross city freeway –it will cost us more then it will benefit us and will only add to congestion. The money can be spent better elsewhere. Some ideas include:

• Improve public transport in the transport poor outer suburbs
• Accelerate smart bus and metropolitan bus improvements (expand service span of hours to equivalent of that of the train system)
• Invest in Bus rapid transit to Doncaster, Latrobe Uni, Western suburbs etc with real bus priority (ie, dedicated bus ways like in Brisbane)
• Better road space management and parking policies
• Better integration between land use and transport planning
• Roll out of transport demand programs like Travelsmart.

The Victorian Governments eventual response to Eddington must encompass the reality of climate change, the absolute need to address social disadvantage through transport policy and the need for a city wide transport plan.

Transport Needs in Brunswick

The transport needs in Brunswick are not for increased road space or a new freeway. We are experiencing congestion, but not for private car or freight. Our congestion, or more accurately, capacity choke points are:

North/South cycling links – in the AM peak the Upfield bike path is full, forcing cyclists onto Sydney Road which has no cycling markings and is dangerous.

• Trams routes. The 55, 19, 8, 1 and 96 trams are under stress in the peak. In some places commuters are unable to board trams.
• Upfield line – train commuters are still faced with an unreliable service with a cancelled or 3 car train being provided on average two or three times a week.
• In addition many of our east west bus routes have inadequate frequencies, and sub standard operating spans.

Brunswick is the biggest point of origin for cycling trips to work, and has large numbers of people also relying on public transport for journey’s to work and other local trips.

Our transport needs are for a greater Victorian Government investment in rolling stock (both tram and train), a accelerated expansion (and implementation) of the principal bicycle network, and an accelerated upgrade of local bus routes to MOTC standards or better.

We do not need the transport budget, and the political energy of the Victorian Government being consumed in a intractable, flawed and ill advised road tunnel. We need that capital – financial and political – being consumed on improving services and providing transport choice.

Regards,

Christopher Anderson

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.

Transport, Eddington and Transformative Change

Transport will be, after economic management, the key policy issue at the next State election.

Why is transport so important? It seems so prosaic to our individual lives. But if you expand your gaze you will see transport policy is all about how we organise our society. How fairly our society is ordered? How far, and by which mode, do we travel to work, to education and to participate in community life?

Indeed, how wealth and power is distributed in cities is intrinsically linked with transport policy. Over the past three decades the poor, disadvantaged and marginalised have been pushed out of the “public” transport rich suburbs of Melbourne, to the edges. And inner Melbourne – once seen as part of the rust belt – with negative population and jobs growth has bucked the trend.

Since the 1990s government policy has sought to revitalise inner Melbourne and it has been a success. In the last five years inner Melbourne has experienced high population growth and high employment growth, The five inner Melbourne LGAs now account for 34 percent of all jobs in Melbourne. And Melbourne is now the second highest growth area in Victoria – just behind Melton – with growth of just over 7 percent per year.

So population is growing, jobs are growing but something else is happening as well. Car use is down, public transport, walking and cycling are booming. Despite the jobs growth there are now almost 5000 less commuter car trips per day in the Melbourne LGA, while there are almost 12,000 more public transport trips, 3000 more cyclists and almost 7000 more walkers.

An increase of 22,000 more sustainable transport trips a day. No wonder our public transport system is congested, and our cycling paths are full.

At the same time Melbournians are reporting a perceived increase in road congestion. Why? Well for the past two decades local governments and more recently the state government has made a conscious effort to reduce easy accessibility to parking and road space in inner Melbourne. From increasing pedestrian spaces, to parking meters, taking away car parking spots, and to building super tram stops, the amount of road space available in inner Melbourne has decreased substantially.

It has been this, along with petrol prices, improved public transport and increased attractiveness of cycling and walking that has brought about modal shift.

So why then are key opinion leaders advocating for a road tunnel?

Firstly, economic activity. There is a perception that infrastructure construction drives economic growth and key business and indeed union leaders are looking for the next big project.

Secondly, opportunity. Merchant bankers in particular are keen to take advantage of the last real potential toll road market in Melbourne.

Thirdly, logistics. The logistics industry is concerned about road congestion in inner Melbourne effecting freight movements and are looking for solutions, though of late they have backed away from the road tunnel solution.

What does this mean for inner Melbourne? In one word – gridlock. A road tunnel condemns the policy success in inner Melbourne of modal shift to failure. A road tunnel will act to induce traffic as “triple convergence” takes effect. The Brookings Institute economist Anthony Downs describes triple convergence…

Visualize a major commuting expressway so heavily congested each morning that traffic just crawls for at least 30 minutes. If that expressway were magically doubled in capacity overnight, the next day traffic there would flow rapidly because the same number of drivers would have twice as much road space.

But soon the word would get around that this road was now uncongested. Many drivers who had formerly travelled on that road before and after the peak hour to avoid congestion would shift back into that peak period. Other drivers who had been using alternative routes would shift onto this more convenient expressway. Even some commuters who used public transit would start driving on this road.

Within a short time, this triple convergence upon the expanded road during peak hours would make the road as congested as before its expansion.

So a road tunnel does not, contrary to the propaganda of its adherents, relieve congestion in the inner north – it is in fact a recipe for more.

Back in 2006 we can very, very close to the government agreeing to build this tunnel. It was only defeated by a political compromise – the Eddington review. But the proponents of a road tunnel have badly miscalculated. They failed to do their homework – they failed to understand who Eddington is (an economist), they failed to manage the submission process and they failed to understand how much our world has changed in these last few years.

Out there in “voterland” while congestion is still a key issue it is not the only one. Climate change, transport emissions and social disadvantage are equally important factors.

So Eddington will deliver tomorrow a politically inconvenient report. It will not deliver the road tunnel that the merchant bankers want. Eddington has accepting the argument that a road tunnel with CBD/inner north interchanges will add to congestion, so he is proposing a tunnel that does not have any CBD interchanges. This is a road tunnel which will not make money for the merchant bankers and investors.

Eddington will also propose huge public transport projects which will be greeted by some with enthusiasm, others will deride them as “green wash” and others yet (including I suspect many of our backbench) will ask “wither South Morang (or Doncaster, or Rowville, or my electorate)”.

So, the road tunnel will be terminal on arrival. If we can just kill it off we can effect, possibly a transformative change in transport policy in our city. A change that will see expanding public transport service coverage, span and frequencies as they key to managing population growth and addressing climate change and social disadvantage.

Once the road tunnel dies then the government will have no choice but to turn to public transport and make it central in any strategy to manage congestion. Given that road pricing remains a political hot potato, the only way is to re-commit to a new package of measures, say a MOTC 2.

Meeting Our Transport Challenges – announced in 2006 – now looks in 2008 as rather tired and worn out. It is a very valuable package, but is largely catch up for a couple of decades of neglect. Yet despite this MOTC is working – we are actually on target to meet our 20/2020 goal.

Nevertheless a new package – MOTC 2 - is needed. Some possible big ticket items to put forward include:

• New bus service standards: expanding the span of hours and frequencies of all bus services to equivalent of that of trains.
• Accelerate the rollout of Smart Bus and plan for new SmartBus routes (CBD to Latrobe Uni, Hampton to Pakenham, extend 900 to Ferntree Gully, Caroline Springs to City etc)
• Accelerate rail capacity and expansion in key growth corridors (ie South Morang, Tarneit etc.)
• Develop plans for rail capacity in inner Melbourne (ie. A North South or East West tunnel)
• Improve tram priority and seize powers over parking etc on tram routes from local government
• Complete and then expand the bicycle network
• And maybe, commit to look again at congestion pricing in five years time (maybe with an offset on the petrol excise)

If this is the outcome of Eddington then Melbourne will be a better city for it. The cost of failure however is unbearable – economically, socially and environmentally.

Leaking Eddington

Page 5 of today's Herald Sun gives a snippet of details on the Eddington report - widely believed to be slated for public release this week (maybe Wednesday).

Details are not available on-line but it mentions that the report will include:

• a rail tunnel between Footscray and Caulfield via the Domain interchange
• a road tunnel from the eastern freeway to the western suburbs via the Tullamarine freeway with no CBD interchanges.
• A new western suburbs railway line - the Tarneit line
• proposal that the state government should take up powers over parking and other restrictions on tram routes
  

Previous reports also suggest that there will be no plans proposed for rail to the Doncaster corridor - which will disappoint residents in that part of Melbourne.

Clearly Eddington will present a politically inconvenient report. His model for the road tunnel is not what the merchant bankers and road builders wanted. By mandating no CBD interchanges he takes away the utility of a tunnel for well over 85 percent of all traffic flowing from the eastern freeway. This would decrease its value as an investment for financiers keen on another big PPP road project in Melbourne.

Clearly the battle over a road tunnel is about to enter a new phase. In one corner is Connect East, Macquarie, VECCI and the RACV. In the other is almost all other sectors of opinion in transport policy - from public transport companies to planners to local government to community and Melbourne's academic community. The outcome of this battle could be transformative for the prospects for real change in public transport funding in Victoria - if won. But if lost the outcome could be catastrophic - politically, environmentally, socially.

Tis an autumn for an election

I am running for election as a delegate to ALP State Conference from my local area. For the record I thought I might reproduce parts of my letter to ALP members here...

As you know over the past few years I have been a member of the Coburg branch executive, including secretary. Currently I am also a member of the party’s Transport Policy Committee.

Labor, being in power at all three levels of government, has a historic opportunity to change our nation for the better. We need progressive voices at state conference that will to provide a vital counter to conservative ideas and interests.

I have been endorsed by the Socialist Left, and if elected I will support progressive policies such as:

• Planning for a sustainable future, including the expansion of public transport and opposing unnecessary and expensive road projects
• More respect for unions from Labor governments – especially in the vital areas of education and health.
  
• Economic policies that are grounded in a desire to make poverty history.
• Support for diversity and multiculturalism within a framework of respect for human rights, equality for women and the rule of law;

I am committed to reporting back to the Coburg/Brunswick branch following each State Conference and taking up your issues at that forum.