It's been a while since there's been a concerted push to use less fuel. Especially one based on urgent availability considerations. Hence we've had the Victorian Farmers Federation urge (mainly) city dwellers to reduce their use of scarce fuel supplies by switching to public transport.
Active transport hasn't had so much emphasis with the City of Yarra ripping up bike lanes and the Victorian Greens seeking to remove active transport's relative financial benefits by making public transport free for a month.
Past fuel supply squeezes have involved policies like speed limit reductions (such as in the US in the 1970s) and odds and evens registration plate rationing at petrol stations. High fuel prices in the 1970s (again due to Middle East instability) led to a revival of inner city living and public transport in some cities. In Melbourne's case it was confirmation that trams were here to stay with new trams being ordered and extensions on routes such as 59, 75 and 86.
Some 30 years later it was fuel price rises coupled with a strong economy and booming CBD employment led to rail crowding in the 2005-2010 period. Pressures on the network led to a revival of investment in it, with projects such as Regional Rail Link and the Metro Tunnel being the result. Not uncoincidentally researcher Jago Dodson released the VAMPIRE index gauging the vulnerability of Australian suburbs to oil price shocks in 2006.
Active transport hasn't had so much emphasis with the City of Yarra ripping up bike lanes and the Victorian Greens seeking to remove active transport's relative financial benefits by making public transport free for a month.
Past fuel supply squeezes have involved policies like speed limit reductions (such as in the US in the 1970s) and odds and evens registration plate rationing at petrol stations. High fuel prices in the 1970s (again due to Middle East instability) led to a revival of inner city living and public transport in some cities. In Melbourne's case it was confirmation that trams were here to stay with new trams being ordered and extensions on routes such as 59, 75 and 86.
Some 30 years later it was fuel price rises coupled with a strong economy and booming CBD employment led to rail crowding in the 2005-2010 period. Pressures on the network led to a revival of investment in it, with projects such as Regional Rail Link and the Metro Tunnel being the result. Not uncoincidentally researcher Jago Dodson released the VAMPIRE index gauging the vulnerability of Australian suburbs to oil price shocks in 2006.
Today more of our cars are electric and working from home is more common. There has been population densification in some areas. On the other hand our cities have continued to sprawl. Corner stores have shut in established suburbs while new suburbs never got them. Smaller families, the rise of private schooling, school consolidations, car ownership, both parents working and increased traffic has sharply reduced walking and cycling to schools.
Then there's the burgeoning delivery economy. Yesterday I received a small (non-essential) item that could have fitted in a padded post bag and put in the letterbox at the start of my driveway by a postie on an electric scooter. Instead it came to me in a huge packing-material filled box from a courier (who was likely not well paid) driven to my door in a big truck. Surely that doesn't make sense in an oil conscious world.
Then there's the burgeoning delivery economy. Yesterday I received a small (non-essential) item that could have fitted in a padded post bag and put in the letterbox at the start of my driveway by a postie on an electric scooter. Instead it came to me in a huge packing-material filled box from a courier (who was likely not well paid) driven to my door in a big truck. Surely that doesn't make sense in an oil conscious world.
What are some responses to the pressures to maximise fuel availability for essential uses for which substitution is not easily or quickly possible?
Below is a personal transport pyramid that I've made. It looks a bit like a food pyramid. To conserve fuel you want to encourage people to do as much as possible near the base and as little as possible of what's near the top.
Behaviour change might involve sometimes jumping one or two steps to a less energy intensive option. Or it might involve doing the same thing but less often. Eg combining several tasks in a single car trip. If homes have multiple cars you want the ones with the highest fuel usage to hardly ever be driven.
Below is a personal transport pyramid that I've made. It looks a bit like a food pyramid. To conserve fuel you want to encourage people to do as much as possible near the base and as little as possible of what's near the top.
Behaviour change might involve sometimes jumping one or two steps to a less energy intensive option. Or it might involve doing the same thing but less often. Eg combining several tasks in a single car trip. If homes have multiple cars you want the ones with the highest fuel usage to hardly ever be driven.
Many can't or won't make big leaps. But enabling smaller movements might still be desirable. For example someone going from public to active transport during crowded peak periods creates room for someone else to go from driving to public transport.
Current hybrid commuting patterns may also offer opportunities. Currently Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays are busier than Mondays and Fridays. But are there opportunities to encourage some commuters to switch to the quieter days? That's not to everyone's taste but even if a few people do it there may be a cascading effect where space is freed for others to shift modes.
Incentives need to have some thought about them and not just be knee-jerk reactions. They need to me mainly about making desired alternatives good, not just cheap. We should emphasise what can be done on a large scale, quickly and cheaply with existing assets. It needs the direct opposite thinking to the "Big Build" approach that has dominated transport planning and depleted our budgets. For example tactical reallocation of road space to favour more energy efficient / higher people throughput transport.
Pop-up bike lanes, zebra crossings at all busy roundabouts to reduce severance they cause, walker-friendly traffic light signalling, opportunistic land acquisitions to gridify the active transport network, more shade and seating, delivery lockers walkable from all homes and pop-up convenience stores in growth areas without them could all be part of the story.
Yesterday the state government quietly released Victoria's Active Transport Plan. The release could not have been softer despite active transport being central to reducing non-essential uses for fuel and freeing up supply for harder to substitute for essential uses such as farming. There was no media release, no mention in parliament and (critically) no new funding.
The state might try gentle persuasion to encourage councils to do their share for active transport but something dramatic, like monitoring (or sacking) a recalcitrant council like Yarra for pulling up bike lanes, might send a short sharp message to all councils with regards to expected behaviours in a fuel and climate emergency.
Perverse incentives need to be avoided, even though they are superficially attractive. And it is essential to offer no less incentives for active transport as may be offered for public transport. If you don't do that you risk the reverse, ie people switching from active to public transport, potentially crowding out those who might be switching to the latter from driving.
Current hybrid commuting patterns may also offer opportunities. Currently Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays are busier than Mondays and Fridays. But are there opportunities to encourage some commuters to switch to the quieter days? That's not to everyone's taste but even if a few people do it there may be a cascading effect where space is freed for others to shift modes.
Incentives need to have some thought about them and not just be knee-jerk reactions. They need to me mainly about making desired alternatives good, not just cheap. We should emphasise what can be done on a large scale, quickly and cheaply with existing assets. It needs the direct opposite thinking to the "Big Build" approach that has dominated transport planning and depleted our budgets. For example tactical reallocation of road space to favour more energy efficient / higher people throughput transport.
Pop-up bike lanes, zebra crossings at all busy roundabouts to reduce severance they cause, walker-friendly traffic light signalling, opportunistic land acquisitions to gridify the active transport network, more shade and seating, delivery lockers walkable from all homes and pop-up convenience stores in growth areas without them could all be part of the story.
Yesterday the state government quietly released Victoria's Active Transport Plan. The release could not have been softer despite active transport being central to reducing non-essential uses for fuel and freeing up supply for harder to substitute for essential uses such as farming. There was no media release, no mention in parliament and (critically) no new funding.
The state might try gentle persuasion to encourage councils to do their share for active transport but something dramatic, like monitoring (or sacking) a recalcitrant council like Yarra for pulling up bike lanes, might send a short sharp message to all councils with regards to expected behaviours in a fuel and climate emergency.
Perverse incentives need to be avoided, even though they are superficially attractive. And it is essential to offer no less incentives for active transport as may be offered for public transport. If you don't do that you risk the reverse, ie people switching from active to public transport, potentially crowding out those who might be switching to the latter from driving.
"Free" public transport (like suggested by The Greens) is one example that is likely to attract as many (if not more) people from active to public transport than from driving. Plus its distributional benefits are dubious as it helps those nearest the best service the most while not assisting regional and suburban dwellers with no or sparse service. There may well be an argument to review the equity of fares (especially for shorter trips that we charge quite heavily for versus our insanely cheap entirely diesel long distance V/Line fares) but "free" public transport is not the way to go and could even be counter-productive.
On the other hand service upgrades on routes that are busy and/or serve catchments sensitive to cost of living pressures is likely a better policy response that has a higher potential to attract people from driving. Economy with regards to fuel consumption is likely maximised if bus networks are reviewed to reduce inefficient overlaps.
Cheaper to operate electric buses sitting idle in a fuel crisis? Yes it's a thing in Melbourne. For all the hype about electric buses, we are doing a terrible job at using the fleet efficiently to carry the most number of people all week because network reform failed to accompany electrification. For example just 1 in 6 of the bus routes at Ventura's electric Ivanhoe depot operate 7 days.
The one that does (the 527) is only every 50 minutes on Sundays and is inefficiently overlapped by other routes. Scope exists for simplified bus networks to make timetables less lumpy, even out intervals and likely equalise loadings to optimise bus occupancy without overcrowding in high activity areas like Coburg and Preston, with an example involving the 527 presented here. The government got cold feet on northern suburbs bus reform in 2023 but a revival is justified given changed circumstances.
Another electrified depot, Kinetic's at Preston, is the base of other northern suburbs bus routes like 503, 506 and 508. The first two have short hours and lack Sunday service. 503 is the only public transport directly serving a significant high-rise and social housing area in Brunswick West. 506 is Melbourne's busiest bus route without Sunday service. 508 does have Sunday service but only at 40 minute intervals. As the major east-west route across Melbourne's inner north it has even higher patronage potential than the 506.
Because the inner and middle north have significant north-south routes (trains and trams) but limited east-west connectivity (entirely mostly infrequent buses) bus route simplification could assist in modal shift as the network transitions to a more versatile grid with more consistently easier connections.
Opportunities also exist in areas hardest hit by cost of living increases. Noting that higher fuel prices are inflationary, with the effect likely cascading through to essentials such as food. 7 day upgrades to routes like 802 and 804 cut food deserts by enable easier access to fresh food destinations such as Dandenong Market. Similar boosts to limited service routes like 538 (Campbellfield), 559 (Thomastown) and 844 (Doveton) would also deliver gains.
Acceleration of bus roll-outs in unserved growth areas is another winner. Time-lines for implementation are typically long. However at least some of this is a matter of political choice from a government that has got good at removing level crossings in less time than it takes to do the simpler job of adding a new bus route.
Some potentially redundant or over serviced routes have been rationalised since this item was written in 2020. The soon to happen upgrade of Sandringham line trains to every 10 min weekday off-peak might make the rationalisation of poorly used north-south bus routes in the Brighton area parallel to the train worth doing, especially if it enabled service kilometres to be transferred to higher patronage potential bus corridors in busier, denser or higher needs areas.
On the other hand service upgrades on routes that are busy and/or serve catchments sensitive to cost of living pressures is likely a better policy response that has a higher potential to attract people from driving. Economy with regards to fuel consumption is likely maximised if bus networks are reviewed to reduce inefficient overlaps.
Cheaper to operate electric buses sitting idle in a fuel crisis? Yes it's a thing in Melbourne. For all the hype about electric buses, we are doing a terrible job at using the fleet efficiently to carry the most number of people all week because network reform failed to accompany electrification. For example just 1 in 6 of the bus routes at Ventura's electric Ivanhoe depot operate 7 days.
The one that does (the 527) is only every 50 minutes on Sundays and is inefficiently overlapped by other routes. Scope exists for simplified bus networks to make timetables less lumpy, even out intervals and likely equalise loadings to optimise bus occupancy without overcrowding in high activity areas like Coburg and Preston, with an example involving the 527 presented here. The government got cold feet on northern suburbs bus reform in 2023 but a revival is justified given changed circumstances.
Another electrified depot, Kinetic's at Preston, is the base of other northern suburbs bus routes like 503, 506 and 508. The first two have short hours and lack Sunday service. 503 is the only public transport directly serving a significant high-rise and social housing area in Brunswick West. 506 is Melbourne's busiest bus route without Sunday service. 508 does have Sunday service but only at 40 minute intervals. As the major east-west route across Melbourne's inner north it has even higher patronage potential than the 506.
Because the inner and middle north have significant north-south routes (trains and trams) but limited east-west connectivity (entirely mostly infrequent buses) bus route simplification could assist in modal shift as the network transitions to a more versatile grid with more consistently easier connections.
Opportunities also exist in areas hardest hit by cost of living increases. Noting that higher fuel prices are inflationary, with the effect likely cascading through to essentials such as food. 7 day upgrades to routes like 802 and 804 cut food deserts by enable easier access to fresh food destinations such as Dandenong Market. Similar boosts to limited service routes like 538 (Campbellfield), 559 (Thomastown) and 844 (Doveton) would also deliver gains.
Acceleration of bus roll-outs in unserved growth areas is another winner. Time-lines for implementation are typically long. However at least some of this is a matter of political choice from a government that has got good at removing level crossings in less time than it takes to do the simpler job of adding a new bus route.
Some potentially redundant or over serviced routes have been rationalised since this item was written in 2020. The soon to happen upgrade of Sandringham line trains to every 10 min weekday off-peak might make the rationalisation of poorly used north-south bus routes in the Brighton area parallel to the train worth doing, especially if it enabled service kilometres to be transferred to higher patronage potential bus corridors in busier, denser or higher needs areas.
In Melbourne we are not used to upgraded timetables taking much less than 2 or 3 years from planning to implementation. Active transport projects might also take a while to plan. But things can happen much faster when there is the will such as a fuel emergency might encourage. Here this government can draw inspiration from the Bracks-Brumby government that in one 18 month period added a massive 8000 extra bus services per week and what cities like Paris have done with regards to active transport.
Hopefully 'never waste a crisis' becomes a guiding principle for DTP in the next little while so that a legacy of a better active and public transport network endures even if/when current tensions subside.
Hopefully 'never waste a crisis' becomes a guiding principle for DTP in the next little while so that a legacy of a better active and public transport network endures even if/when current tensions subside.
