Starting with this test message, it has grown to something that a few people in transport read.
Some things projected or advocated in it even happened. I am optimistic that more will in the next few years. This has to be as the policy pendulum, now weighted by infrastructure-incurred debt, swings back towards improved asset utilisation through better service as is the core theme here.
Melbourne on Transit's history falls neatly into thirds of 6 to 7 years each.
I started it early in my transport career, although I had been in transport advocacy and passenger information circles years before that.
Things were different then. Back in 2005 transport was so institutionally fragmented that you could work in one area of transport and write about the others without piquing your boss's consternation. Chances are they watched TV rather than a computer screen at night so wouldn't have seen it anyway.
The online environment
Social media was then less a part of popular culture, although there were very active niche websites. People with something (and sometimes nothing) to say in transport populated forums such as Bus Australia and Railpage in huge numbers. Others had blogs and websites with the still going Vicsig being a pioneer. Forums featured participants ranging from teenage gunzels, future rail fantasists, nostalgic curmudgeons all the way up to Secretary Jim Betts (who was then defending the government's record against critics such the PTUA's Paul Mees).
Things were different then. Back in 2005 transport was so institutionally fragmented that you could work in one area of transport and write about the others without piquing your boss's consternation. Chances are they watched TV rather than a computer screen at night so wouldn't have seen it anyway.
The online environment
Social media was then less a part of popular culture, although there were very active niche websites. People with something (and sometimes nothing) to say in transport populated forums such as Bus Australia and Railpage in huge numbers. Others had blogs and websites with the still going Vicsig being a pioneer. Forums featured participants ranging from teenage gunzels, future rail fantasists, nostalgic curmudgeons all the way up to Secretary Jim Betts (who was then defending the government's record against critics such the PTUA's Paul Mees).
The first substantive blog post, a day later on April 29, 2005, had links to four websites that I considered significant. Two of those four links still work. That includes Zen and the City Loop (an independent page needed to explain the then and now still complex City Loop as officialdom considers it too hard) and what is now the Australian Timetable Association. One of the broken links went to Rob O'Regan's unofficial Metcard website. An outstanding treasure of information about transport ticketing, notably Metcard, the Wayback Machine still has an archived version of it here. The other link was to the City Circle Tram, broken due to various renamings and rebrandings that plague official websites.
Public transport in 2005
Public transport in 2005
What was public transport like in April 2005? Ticketing was Metcard, trains were Connex and the fancy Southern Cross Station roof was under construction. Branding still reflected the previous era of franchising and fragmentation, though Metlink, commenced the previous year, was starting to assert a network identity.
Catching buses was a mugs game in 2005. There were some green shoots of renewal in 2002 with pilot SmartBuses on Blackburn and Springvale Rd running. But overwhelmingly if you wanted to catch a bus on a Sunday or after 7pm you couldn't as timetables were so limited. It wasn't until the Bracks government's 7th year in office, in 2006, that serious inroads were made into that with the launch of the Meeting our Transport Challenges plan (or MOTC).
Perhaps compensating for the Melbourne-centrism of the Kennett years, the early Bracks years were regionally focused. A major emphasis was revitalising rail to Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and La Trobe Valley under the Regional Fast Rail program. Regional rail was returned to government management while metropolitan rail remained with continually rebranding private franchisees.
Catching buses was a mugs game in 2005. There were some green shoots of renewal in 2002 with pilot SmartBuses on Blackburn and Springvale Rd running. But overwhelmingly if you wanted to catch a bus on a Sunday or after 7pm you couldn't as timetables were so limited. It wasn't until the Bracks government's 7th year in office, in 2006, that serious inroads were made into that with the launch of the Meeting our Transport Challenges plan (or MOTC).
Perhaps compensating for the Melbourne-centrism of the Kennett years, the early Bracks years were regionally focused. A major emphasis was revitalising rail to Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and La Trobe Valley under the Regional Fast Rail program. Regional rail was returned to government management while metropolitan rail remained with continually rebranding private franchisees.
As wouldn't become critical until later, state interest in developing metropolitan public transport was low with some 1999 promises scaled back or broken. The government launched the Melbourne 2030 planning document in 2002. Like the private rail franchises then in effect, there was an ambitious patronage goal but no serious funded transport component despite its own public forums calling for this. Instead it was the collapse of these franchises that forced the government to pay renewed attention to metropolitan rail.
Making the franchisees viable, preserving conditions for staff and reunifying the network were key priorities. Service reform, including higher frequencies, was off the menu. So were major train and tram network extensions, with the public told in 2005 not to expect any for 15 to 20 years. Thus the official position when Melbourne on Transit started was that trains and trams would continue to operate but not significantly expand, essentially limiting their reach and role.
Then metropolitan rail usage started surging, forcing punctuality into free fall. The government, hoping these times would pass, was caught with its pantographs down, with Minister Kosky famously saying that she didn't want to run a rail network. These times did not pass, the Labor government acted too late and so lost the 2010 state election. More about the Bracks and Brumby era here.
A consequence of that election was institutional change in public transport. Both the Greens and Coalition supported some form of integrated public transport authority. Labor preferred to keep the current fragmented arrangements with a Department of Transport doing the planning, operators doing the running and Metlink, as a technically private operator-owned company, to do the information, marketing and revenue allocation. To the side there were other agencies like Victrack to look after rail assets and the Transport Ticketing Authority to implement the new myki system.
Making the franchisees viable, preserving conditions for staff and reunifying the network were key priorities. Service reform, including higher frequencies, was off the menu. So were major train and tram network extensions, with the public told in 2005 not to expect any for 15 to 20 years. Thus the official position when Melbourne on Transit started was that trains and trams would continue to operate but not significantly expand, essentially limiting their reach and role.
Then metropolitan rail usage started surging, forcing punctuality into free fall. The government, hoping these times would pass, was caught with its pantographs down, with Minister Kosky famously saying that she didn't want to run a rail network. These times did not pass, the Labor government acted too late and so lost the 2010 state election. More about the Bracks and Brumby era here.
A consequence of that election was institutional change in public transport. Both the Greens and Coalition supported some form of integrated public transport authority. Labor preferred to keep the current fragmented arrangements with a Department of Transport doing the planning, operators doing the running and Metlink, as a technically private operator-owned company, to do the information, marketing and revenue allocation. To the side there were other agencies like Victrack to look after rail assets and the Transport Ticketing Authority to implement the new myki system.
The Coalition won and set up Public Transport Victoria as a 'one stop shop' incorporating Metlink and part of the Department of Transport. Not everyone in the old department found new roles in the new PTV so it was an unsettling time for some. However public transport's political importance, especially metropolitan rail, had risen. Exciting investments in infrastructure, some funded by the previous government, were to come on-line. Some lines were getting much needed 'greenfield' timetables with Frankston the first to get a 7 day 10 minute service. And we were on the cusp of a rail reliability revival that reversed nearly a decade of decline from 2003.
Hiatus
My professional role was changing around then, with a move from data to planning. Plus there were other transport blogs starting that I (incorrectly) thought would be enduring. So in January 2012 I stopped posting but left it online.
Here I acknowledge blogging stalwarts Marcus Wong and Daniel Bowen who kept readers satisfied uninterrupted, before, during and after this period. Their steady fare got supplemented at times by others who would appear, delete then reappear.
This hiatus marked the second third of the blog's history. The first third never saw very high readership. But what there was seemed to hold up for at least four years after I stopped posting. Followed by a slow decline from about 2016, around the time government transport priorities switched to infrastructure which this blog never covered in detail.
Hiatus
My professional role was changing around then, with a move from data to planning. Plus there were other transport blogs starting that I (incorrectly) thought would be enduring. So in January 2012 I stopped posting but left it online.
Here I acknowledge blogging stalwarts Marcus Wong and Daniel Bowen who kept readers satisfied uninterrupted, before, during and after this period. Their steady fare got supplemented at times by others who would appear, delete then reappear.
This hiatus marked the second third of the blog's history. The first third never saw very high readership. But what there was seemed to hold up for at least four years after I stopped posting. Followed by a slow decline from about 2016, around the time government transport priorities switched to infrastructure which this blog never covered in detail.
Revival
The most recent third is apparent from the readership surge from January 2019. Others suggested I resume the blog but I was initially lukewarm. Then, following some trial posts on a Facebook group, blog posting resumed after another professional change gave new freedoms. That first item highlighted Melbourne's declining public transport service per capita, something that would become an increasing focus. The revival also saw weekly features looking at timetables and networks in more detail.
Thanks to you readers views rose strongly until the pandemic. They levelled off then since resumed rising (though I would ignore the spikes). Lifetime impressions (at least since 2011) stands at 1.43 million.
A staple matter covered has been bus network reform. Official interest in the rhetoric (if not yet the practice) of this rose with the launch of Victoria's Bus Plan in 2021. It is possible that, a bit like Infrastructure Victoria, Melbourne on Transit has assisted in creating a propitious policy climate for this, even if what gets implemented is less ambitious and at a slower pace than one might like.
I have increasingly covered rail service matters. Other things being equal, if I write an item about trains it will get more readers than one about buses. This might reflect trains' generally higher usage than buses in Melbourne. Or the heightened public interest given major projects, notably the Metro Tunnel, are starting soon.
Service relationship with infrastructure builds
I have (too?) rarely covered major infrastructure builds. But I do want to discuss the intersection between infrastructure, planning and service.
A continual theme of public transport planning in Melbourne (regional Victoria gets a better mix) is that we build infrastructure but rarely add enough service to make the infrastructure truly worthwhile for more than a few hours a day.
It's as if there's a need to justify projects with business cases that seek to deliver positive benefit cost ratios in order to attract funding. That may include a scramble to find low cost / high benefit network reforms or service upgrades that make BCRs better. Even reaching for things that could have been done at any time prior.
Then once the project is funded the need to substantiate benefits may vanish as the cost is sunk and there is no turning back. Also if project costs exceeds budget then wider benefits network additions, even if relatively cheap, risk getting discarded, narrowing benefits to less than envisaged.
As an example we could have had a heap of off-peak rail frequency upgrades (and even some greenfields peak timetables) without level crossing removals. Yet we got the (often still desirable) level crossing removals but rarely substantial all day service increases.
It's as if there's a need to justify projects with business cases that seek to deliver positive benefit cost ratios in order to attract funding. That may include a scramble to find low cost / high benefit network reforms or service upgrades that make BCRs better. Even reaching for things that could have been done at any time prior.
Then once the project is funded the need to substantiate benefits may vanish as the cost is sunk and there is no turning back. Also if project costs exceeds budget then wider benefits network additions, even if relatively cheap, risk getting discarded, narrowing benefits to less than envisaged.
As an example we could have had a heap of off-peak rail frequency upgrades (and even some greenfields peak timetables) without level crossing removals. Yet we got the (often still desirable) level crossing removals but rarely substantial all day service increases.
This downplaying of off-peaks has continued even though the pre-pandemic trends (that have only since intensified) have made off-peaks the main game. Which is actually good news for those who wish to see a generally useful all-week network that maximises its returns from assets.
Service prospects for the Metro Tunnel
Right now is a particularly interesting time as we have yet to see what service levels we'll get from the Metro Tunnel and related train timetables. I discussed this here and here .
Having seen only limited metropolitan rail service uplifts (a) before level crossing removals and (b) after level crossing removals, will the Metro Tunnel be the project that finally brings home the goods on service? We don't yet know.
Thus with not even basic frequency specifications on this and related line timetables being public yet, any speculation or analysis, even if on a scrappy blog, finds an audience. Including by the news media, with the most recent being a major article this month.
Most popular
Now about you. What have been your all-time favourite posts over the years? Here they are, starting with the most read first.
Now about you. What have been your all-time favourite posts over the years? Here they are, starting with the most read first.
1. Sydney versus Melbourne - who really has the better transport?
Proof that everyone loves click-baity titled city by city comparisons. Even before their CBD metro opened the winner was Sydney. Though with our extensive rail system, trams and bus suitable suburban road grid, Melbourne can excel if it cared more about 18-20 hour a day all week frequency and more direct bus routes.
2. The state capital with the worst public transport
Another inter city comparison but in more detail. The answer is NOT Melbourne, despite what some pessimists claim.
Proof that everyone loves click-baity titled city by city comparisons. Even before their CBD metro opened the winner was Sydney. Though with our extensive rail system, trams and bus suitable suburban road grid, Melbourne can excel if it cared more about 18-20 hour a day all week frequency and more direct bus routes.
2. The state capital with the worst public transport
Another inter city comparison but in more detail. The answer is NOT Melbourne, despite what some pessimists claim.
Long term rail shutdowns can be confusing and official communication can sometimes be patchy. This guest post by Craig Halsall filled the gap for winter 2023 Frankston line passengers.
4. Who runs transport? A look at DTP's leadership team
The Department of Transport and Planning is a mystery to outsiders. And people love reading about people. So when I put together what I could find about the backgrounds of the department's top executives it was an instant hit. DTP insiders appeared as eager to read about their bosses as the rest of us. Though as you'd expect, none left comments.
That item came out June last year. There have been some movements since. However redoing it today would be harder. As discovered on April 1, the executive organisational chart vanished from DTP's website earlier this year, making it a closed season for open governance. And restructures may be looming as the government seeks to cut costs.
5. The Future Frequent Network Melbourne needs
4. Who runs transport? A look at DTP's leadership team
The Department of Transport and Planning is a mystery to outsiders. And people love reading about people. So when I put together what I could find about the backgrounds of the department's top executives it was an instant hit. DTP insiders appeared as eager to read about their bosses as the rest of us. Though as you'd expect, none left comments.
That item came out June last year. There have been some movements since. However redoing it today would be harder. As discovered on April 1, the executive organisational chart vanished from DTP's website earlier this year, making it a closed season for open governance. And restructures may be looming as the government seeks to cut costs.
5. The Future Frequent Network Melbourne needs
When you already have a lot of public transport infrastructure, like Melbourne does, service becomes king. A recurring theme here over the last 20 years is that we could be doing a lot better on service. This popular item presents a multimode frequent network that would make public transport a truly go (almost) everywhere choice across Melbourne.
6. Twelve lessons from Adelaide's attempted bus network reform
6. Twelve lessons from Adelaide's attempted bus network reform
I talk about bus reform a lot here. It can indeed deliver large benefits. But it's also important to learn from failures. We had our own in 2015 when a new government scotched the Transdev Greenfields network. But far more dramatic was the case of Adelaide in 2020. Their complete rework of the bus network came to nothing, even costing the minister his political career. Re-read that item for a list of traps to avoid when reforming a bus network.
7. How will the Metro Tunnel benefit your line?
7. How will the Metro Tunnel benefit your line?
With the Metro Tunnel slated for opening later this year, this March 2024 item has only become more topical. Both Herald Sun and The Age had comprehensive stories this month. Their gist is that we might not get the service uplifts envisaged in the Metro Tunnel Business Case from 2016 (ie pre-pandemic). The government line is that the timetables were still being written and we should just wait and see.
That's it for now. Thanks for all your reading and comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment