Review - Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit can enrich our communities and our lives, by Jarrett Walker

An observation from last September’s Australasian Transport Research Forum conference was the abundance of academics versus the paucity of practitioners.

I define practitoners as those who plan and operate transport routes or closely work with those who do. They have their own work and don’t write books and attend conferences as much as academics and bureaucrats.

Consequently it was refreshing to find a book on public transport service planning by an experienced practitioner. The author, Jarrett Walker, is a service planner and consultant to transport agencies in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. His work was already known to me through his blog at humantransit.org

Having read books by academics such as Mees, Newman and Kenworthy, I was particularly interested in the different perspective that a practitioner might bring.

Academics thrive on research, teaching and (sometimes) political advocacy. However the affordability, practicality and acceptance of their recommendations may not frequently be tested.

Whereas practitioners need to be more practical and less theoretical. They must often work within existing resources; something academics might find limiting. Consultants can be practitioners too but won’t get work if not seen as useful.

In Human Transit, Walker describes himself as a plumber.

We don’t expect plumbers to tell us how to run our cities and our lives; unlike (say) priests, politicians and talkback radio hosts. They may hold values but cannot choose them for their clients. But they might be able to advise on the consequences of particular decisions; for instance the cheap quick fix versus the dearer but enduring repair. And they might point out that any option chosen must respect basic laws, like water flowing from high to low, for the system to work effectively.

City planners and developers deal the hand with which transit planners must work. Some decisions, notably with respect to density, are controversial. Walker, more than Mees, sees density as conducive to higher patronage. However he adds, correctly in my view, that location and geometry are equally critical when designing neighbourhoods for direct and efficient transport routes. To Walker these factors are public transport’s equivalent of the plumber’s basic laws. If disobeyed an area may never be easily or efficiently served by good public transport.

Transport networks themselves can be optimised to favour patronage or coverage goals. Networks that optimise patronage generally have direct, fast, frequent but more widely spaced routes, whereas a coverage-oriented network sacrifices directness, speed and frequency for short walking distances. Walker insists that transport authorities set a resource allocation policy between ‘patronage’ and ‘coverage’ routes.

Only after such priorities, and thus available resources, are known can the service planner design the network.

The book is a mine of simple but often neglected insights that would make public transport better. All are applicable to Melbourne. For instance the trade-off between directness, frequency and legibility on the one hand, and requiring that people change for some trips. We’re used to road maps having different thicknesses for different types of road, from lane to freeway, so why not do the same with transit maps, highlighting our most frequent,and thus most usable routes? And, on busy roads, the contribution of the humble pedestrian crossing to improving access to bus stops and the impetus it provides to gradually increase an areas’s walkability (and thus transit access).

Human Transit does what its title suggests. It forces the reader, from layperson to transport planner, to sharpen their thoughts and ask the right questions. I highly recommend it.

Human Transit is published by Island Press and is available via the link below.

Taking a punt

The West Gate Bridge is unashamedly for cars and trucks. It has no pedestrian or cycling facilities. Its two bus routes (232 and NightRider 944) run between the CBD and western suburbs.

There is however a Westgate Punt that ferries cyclists and pedestrians under the bridge. It ran on weekends only, but government funding has allowed a weekday peak service to be added. This is currently operating as a trial, free for its first month.

The punt runs from Spotswood to Fishermans Bend. There are cycle routes on both sides. Walk-on passengers will find that the Spotswood terminal is about ten minutes walk from the station. Weekday buses run to the city from a stop near the Fishermans Bend terminus.

The free trial offer was too good to pass up, so I took the punt this morning. Usage for trips towards the city was good, at over half the boat's carrying limit (12 people). Counter-peak patronage was less, at 1 or 2. It's a fast trip - 5 or 10 minutes. With loading and unloading time one vessel comfortably provides a 20 minute frequency.

So where does The Punt fit into the transport network? It saves a lot of time for cyclists commuting between the inner-western suburbs, Port Melbourne and possibly the CBD. Those who work regular business hours may even find it faster than driving, judging by vehicle speeds on the bridge.

Its utility for pedestrians is less due to limited connectivity with other public transport services. There's the ten minute walk at the western end and the limited bus service at the eastern end. Still it may be better than land public transport options, particularly for those working within walking distance of the punt in Fishermans Bend.

A further handicap is that though Fishermans Bend appears to have reasonable job density (good for public transport) its low permeability limits bus route efficiency and pedestrian access (think freeways, fences and superblocks).

The pictures below show the punt in action.

2010-2011 State Budget

Key documents from today's State budget, the first for the Baillieu government.

The whole thing

Department of Transport (basically costs and performance indicators)

Media releases (from Department of Transport website)

Capital program (what they're building)

After the Election

Last Saturday Victorians voted for a change of government. Below are a few observations on the campaign and the challenges facing the new government.

Rail’s rise

Public transport was prominent in the campaign, with the main topics being railway service delivery, security and staffing. Feasability studies for new lines and revised arrangements for service planning were also on the agenda. On election night the Opposition’s David Davis said that passenger discontent contributed to victories in Bentleigh, Mordialloc, Carrum and Frankston, all on Melbourne’s least punctual rail line. In contrast, buses hardly figured, except as alternatives to a Mernda railway.

Transport plans reflect rail’s growth in political importance. The 2006 ‘Meeting our Transport Challenges’ was largely about buses, especially upgraded local services and new SmartBus routes. Whereas the 2008 Victorian Transport Plan was basically a road and rail infrastructure plan, proposing the Regional Rail Link and Melbourne Metro projects.

Successive ministers heaped blame for disruptions on the rail operator. The former premier promised ‘improvements from Day One’ when the new franchise operators took over last year. Politically this hurt more than Bob Hawke's famous 'by 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty' promise. Labor learned the hard way that the railway is a fragile and fractious beast whose reliability reflects past maintenance, errant car drivers and straying pedestrians more than political niceties. After a brief honeymoon, the new government, with its 'fix it' mandate, will be held to account as surely as the previously one was.

Quiet on the buses

In its last term the defeated Labor government made buses run on Sundays and after 7pm but failed to remind voters of this gain. The consensus on both sides was that buses were not politically significant, despite their extensive coverage. Accordingly the major parties promised either no or minor improvements for buses. This is one of those cases where the past record exceeded the promises; 2010 saw a record number of SmartBus routes added to the network.

The key message for those wanting better buses in 2011 is that most if not all improvements must be cost-neutral. In other words nothing much will happen unless resources can be found by withdrawing or shortening existing routes.

The choice is between a passive approach to bus service planning and few improvements, or a more active approach (including deleting or reducing services on some routes if necessary) and freeing resources for a more important route. After some time where the pursuit of economy was laid aside, transport planners will need to reacquaint themselves with concepts such as ‘opportunty cost’ and the sometimes unpleasant job of rationalising redundant services for a greater good.

All this is a big change from 2006 – 2010 where there was significant new money for bus service upgrades. Planning efficiency probably suffered because services tended to be boosted before being reviewed. And there was sometimes a reluctance to rationalise services, even when overlapped by new routes. Bus reviews came later, but by then funding had run out for wholesale implementation, especially in established areas.

Getting along on the roads

The relationship between road users was an issue in certain seats. Inner-city Liberals campaigned against extended clearway hours on roads served by trams. Clearways sped traffic flow but were vocally opposed by shopkeepers.

Bus lanes on Stud Road were also topical in the electorally critical south-east. These were seen as taking space from motorists and giving them to buses. Bus lanes can be deceptive – a relatively quiet bus lane can carry as many people as a lane full of single occupant vehicles. Nevertheless to moderate community opposition they need to be seen to be used, and this may require a more intensive service than currently runs.

Governance

First the Greens, then the Liberals. Both advocated some form of public transport authority. Labor saw no need, citing the existing functions of the Department of Transport and operators. Whether something gets done (eg bus-train co-ordination) is more important than who does it.

Headway harmonisation hits the news

Today's Age carries an article making the point that no one is in charge of Melbourne's public transport, especially when it comes to service co-ordination.

It contained several quotes on who is responsible for service co-ordination. The confusion evident only demonstrated that different parties have different ideas of what this means.

The calls for a transport planning agency have largely come about due to the gap between the integration that passengers see in fares and information and the disintegration experienced when timetables do not connect, nor are even planned to connect.

Although the Altona example given in the Age article was not a good one, the point made about the non-harmonisation of bus with train timetables is easily able to be tested.

Earlier this year I checked timetable harmonisation at selected bus/train interchanges in Melbourne and Perth.

The method for assessing harmonisation was as follows:

* If the train ran every 20 minutes and buses ran every 20, 40 or 60 minutes, this was counted as harmonised. However if the bus was every 15, 38 or 55 minutes this was not considered harmonised.

* Public holiday arrangements for buses can vary. Tthe figure given is the percentage that follow train holiday patterns (eg if train runs to a Saturday timetable the bus does as well).

* Routes planned as a combined service (eg 216/219 or 827/828) were counted as one.

* Only daytime off-peak services were examined.

* Of course the above does not guarantee connectivity; a bus every 15 minutes could consistently miss a train every 15 minutes by 14 minutes. However unless services are very frequent headway harmonisation is a pre-requisite for high connectivity. And if frequencies are harmonised it should be easier to optimise times for connectivity at the busiest locations.

The extent of bus/train headway harmonisation was found to be as follows:

Percentage of bus routes harmonised with trains by interchange (Mon-Fri/Sat/Sun/Pub Hol)

Perth - Bassendean: 67/33/100/100
Perth - Canning Bridge: 80/100/100/100
Perth - Murdoch: 100/100/100/100
Perth - Whitfords: 100/100/100/100

Melbourne - Cheltenham: 75/75/75/75
Melbourne - Clayton: 80/33/67/100
Melbourne - Craigieburn: 0/0/0/100
Melbourne - Cranbourne: 43/50/50/80
Melbourne - Dandenong: 78/86/80/56
Melbourne - Frankston: 64/67/70/77
Melbourne - Hoppers Crossing: 100/100/100/80
Melbourne - Huntingdale: 75/0/50/100
Melbourne - Pakenham: 100/0/0/80
Melbourne - Reservoir: 17/17/25/67
Melbourne - Sunshine: 30/20/40/80
Melbourne - Watergardens: 83/83/100/83

The above shows that bus/train frequency harmonisation is almost universal in Perth but variable in Melbourne. Similar comments apply for public holidays, with a network-wide standard existing in Perth but not in Melbourne, where holiday practices vary between bus operators and routes (despite substantial recent progress). Both reinforce public impressions of bus routes as complex and unreliable, contrary to the Minister's recent call to embrace bus travel.

The ability to achieve widespread connectivity in one city and patchy connectivity in another indicate that although we have authorities clearly responsible for policy and contract management (Department of Transport), ticketing (Transport Ticketing Authority), information and marketing (Metlink), the equally important function of service planning remains on the outer, despite its centrality to network usability.

My guess is that Stone's paper will conclude along similar lines. While the Age article doesn't mention this, the conference in Canberra is likely to be the Australian Transport Research Forum. If previous years are any guide, the paper presented today should later become available through the ATRF paper archive which is well worth a read for anyone with a transport interest.

Pedestrian strategy and who gets what

Almost unremarked in the mainstream media was the launch of the State Government’s Pedestrian Access Strategy earlier this month. It follows the Cycling strategy released previously.

Rather than explore the strategy, this post will look at how pedestrian resources have been allocated and hence reveal some of the choices and priorities of State Government policy makers to date.

Differing fortunes

Walking and public transport have had different fortunes in the last 30 years.

Metropolitan public transport patronage reached a low point in 1980. Until the early 2000s there were rises and falls, but an overall increase (generally in line with population but insufficient to increase modal share). 2004 – 2009 saw accelerated growth, sufficient to increase transit’s modal share. Preoccupied with rail franchising, refranchising and regional projects, the State Government tapped into this trend quite late but is now providing significant ‘catch-up’ funding for improved bus services and rail infastructure. In the last year train patronage growth has slowed and additional peak services on some lines have relieved crowding though peak punctuality remains too low for reliable connectivity with buses.

Page 18 of the Pedestrian Strategy tells a different story for walking. Its modal share for work commuting more than halved between 1976 and 2001, with only a slight recovery to 2006. This fall is similar in magnitude to the collapse in suburban rail travel during the 1960 – 1980 period.

Just like public transport battled suburbanisation, rising car ownership and limited bus service levels, walking’s enemies have been rising road traffic, poor suburb design, the decline of shopping strips, increased parental protectiveness and the trend to amalgamamated and/or private schooling. And although almost everyone walks, there has been no high-profile organised pedestrian lobby group, such as enjoyed by car drivers, cyclists and public transport users.

Pedestrian funding

If public transport infrastructure spending (and even basic maintenance) can claim to have been the poor cousin to road investment over most of this period, pedestrian access funding is positively destitute.

Page 13 and 14 detail pedestrian access funding over the last ten years. The total spent or earmarked to be spent comes to over $640 million. The distribution of this is as follows:

* $350 million over 10 years to make public transport accessible to people with disabilities. An additional $150 million will be spent on infrastructure to further this.

* 2008 Victorian Transport Plan commitment of $115 million for bicycle lanes and shared bicycle and walking paths (it is not mentioned how much of this has been spent, nor what portion would benefit pedestrians)

* $16 million for the Local Area Access Program (small scale access projects involving local government)

* $5.5 million on TravelSmart (basically marketing walking/cycling/public transport over driving)

* $3.5 million for Vicroads to improve crossings of arterial roads

All public transport trips involve some walking. The ease of reaching a transit stop and vehicle is a critical part of the travel experience, so improving pedestrian access improves the overall service to a wide range of passengers, not just those with impaired mobility. There is a long-standing aim to make our system fully accessible and each passing year sees more low floor buses and tram stops. Investment here accounts for $500 million of our $640 million, or about three-quarters of all claimed pedestrian access spending.

However walking is a transport mode in its own right and the majority of walking trips do not involve a connection to public transport. Its modal share (when measured by number of trips, not trip-kilometres) commonly exceeds that of public transport in many areas, especially for non-work trips.

The amount remaining less public transport accessibility improvements is about $140 million. The lion’s share, or $115 million, went to improvements involving cycling. It is not clear how much of this can be counted as an improvement for pedestrians.

Another 3% of the $640 million, or about $20 million, goes to small-scale access improvements for which pedestrians appear to be the main beneficiary. This includes a $16 million local access program for small-scale local government projects and $3.5 million for improving pedestrian access across major roads, which can divide communities and block safe and direct pedestrian movement.

The potential importance of local projects such as these cannot be underestimated. Most of the Melbourne in 2040 already exists today, and there are thousands of projects such as median strips, traffic calming, signal modifications, roundabout removal and cul-de-sac openings that would boost the walkability of every established suburb.

Although these projects are individually cheap, their sheer number means that $20 million (over several years) doesn’t go very far. Even a twenty fold increase (which would bring the amount involved to that nearer that invested in public transport accessibility) would still represent under 1 percent of Victorian Transport Plan funding and be more consistent with the stated aim of increasing walking’s share.

Finally there is the $5.5 million for TravelSmart funding. This is more properly attributed to several modes including public transport, cycling and even car pooling rather than purely walking. TravelSmart has delivered worthwhile projects such as local access maps (now at city Bike Share racks). However comparing TravelSmart’s allocation with pedestrian access improvements on main roads ($5.5 vs $3.5 million) appears to indicate that telling people that walking is better has a higher priority than making it so, at least on our busier roads.

Priorities

What priorities and biases do these funding patterns indicate?

Disability rights advocates such as Margaret Stevens strenuously argue that the pace of accessability improvements for public transport has been too slow. Melbourne has a particuar problem with its trams as most are older high floor units and many stops are still mid-road ‘safety zones’ that provide for poor access. Funding for accessibility improvements is a minority of total Victorian Transport Plan funding but represents a majority of state government pedestrian funding. Against this it could be considered to be a top priority.

In the middle are various paths, for both cyclists and pedestrians.

At the bottom are local pedestrian access projects, especially where they involve access across main roads.

These funding priorities indicate a welcome tendency to build (or improve) paths but a reluctance to improve access across main roads. A bad path (or none at all) is unattractive to walkers and should be fixed. But at least for the able-bodied it does not seriously reduce end-to-end access speeds (which is the only sound way to measure pedsheds) provided there is some space by the road.

In contrast poor access across main roads results in them forming barriers for much of the day, often barring people of all abilities from reaching bus stops (including some served by low-floor SmartBuses) by the most direct means. Long traffic light cycles similarly compress the ten-minute pedsheds of shopping centres, railway stations and bus stops, reducing the practicality of walking compared to driving.

A pedestrian access audit would find that addressing such pedestrian access deficits on main roads (which in some case may only require an altered traffic light cycle, zebra crossing or new median strip) represent a high priority that should receive a large proportion of project funding.

However the historical reality of funding, according to Pedestrian Strategy figures, is different; just $3.5 million out of $640 million funds went to Vicroads for this purpose.

The Pedestrian Access Strategy is what bureaucrats call a ‘high level’ document with many excellent ideas – if only they were implemented. Its ‘Making it happen’ section describes a governance and consultation process. However it does not give a funding amount nor an indicative works program (eg annual targets for new footpaths, median strips, pedestrian lights, zebra crossings, cul-de-sac joinings and roundabout removals).

Until such a substantive construction program commences, it would appear that Melbourne has a way to go until pedestrians are regarded as legitimate traffic rather than impediments to same, and that road managers can implement goals other than the maximisation of car traffic speed and throughput.

Politicians, Politics and Transport Authorities

A well-attended forum on public transport took place last night at Melbourne Town Hall. Convened by the Metropolitan Transport Forum it featured speeches from the Minister for Transport, Shadow Minister for Transport and The Greens. There was a period for questions after.

Below are several paraphrased statements followed by observations and questions that could have been raised if there was time.

The Greens member recited neither the Minister’s list of projects nor the Shadow Minister’s list of objections. However he briefly mentioned two topics, that of political involvement and management by transport authority, that are worth exploring in more depth.

Martin Pakula (Minister for Transport)

Buses cannot always connect with trains as they operate at different frequencies

This is a fair description of the present for many bus routes (that might run every 38 minutes not not connect with trains every 20 minutes). However such planned non-connectivity is neither an inevitability nor something that can’t be changed.

Given that buses are largely publicly subsidised, and that you oversee a department charged with service co-ordination under the Transport Integration Act, harmonised frequencies and better connectivity should be both achieveable and affordable.

The second reason why buses cannot connect with trains is that they intersect with many train lines. For instance a SmartBus orbital might link ten stations and scheduling connections is impossible

Much like the frequencies we run our buses, the decision to design our premium routes to be long orbitals serving numerous stations was a choice not an inevitability.

Any choice has certain consequences and compromises.

However it is not correct to accept certain consequences as inevitable without acknowledging that they only came about because certain choices (which were not inevitable) were made (in this case the decision to go with long orbital routes rather than upgraded shorter routes serving fewer stations that would be easier to harmonise and ideally co-ordinate with trains).

Terry Mulder (Shadow Minister for Transport)

There will be 2 protective services officers posted at every suburban station (and major regional stations) from 6pm until last train each night. They will be able to escort passengers to their cars.

This was widely reported in the media when announced. But could the escorting service mean that those waiting for a train (going the other way) would not have staff presence for a while? And will security staff go to the trouble of changing platforms to meet every train (where possible)?

The regional fast rail project was a farce

This project did deliver significant service frequency increases to major centres (sort of a follow-up to 1981’s ‘New Deal’ timetable introduced by a previous Coalition government) and patronage has grown rapidly as a response. It also included a component of ‘catch up’ maintenance.

It is true that V/Line on-time performance is often below standard and the bar for longer trips has been lowered. This is often attributed to the suburban network’s unreliability, along which V/Line trains must travel to the city. While punctuality was said to have deteriorated since the RFR services commenced, I didn’t hear anything that convinced me that RFR was the cause of this decline.

Instead his main argument appears to be that his opponents claimed financial mismanagement of projects including myki ticketing, Southern Cross Station and RFR has meant that infrastructure basics that should have been attended to were not.

Greg Barber (The Greens)

Public transport should not be political… it should be run by an accountable public authority

While it is fashionable to argue that ‘things would be better if they were less political’, I am not sure if this is entirely feasible in public transport. This is due to its dependence on public funding for both capital and operational purposes, and hence requires parliamentary scrutiny of same.

As well as not being feasible, ‘non-political’ public transport may not even be desirable. Political decisions can close lines, reopen lines and build new lines. People pushing unfashionable issues envy those whose interest areas are 'political footballs', since at least they're getting air time. And anyone who watched the interviews with Peter Newman on Perth’s rail revival (available on YouTube) heard that the decision to go with train rather than bus for Perth’s booming northern suburbs was a political decision, whereas most industry insiders favoured bus. In this case had ‘non-political’ public transport prevailed the very successful Joondalup line might not have got built.

Also unhelpful is that the term ‘political’ has come to be synonomous with ‘party political’. However there is also a broader politics tied to public organisation (often around community or interest groups) and participation. ‘Political’ could also mean any activity where people comment on a matter of public governance or interest, for instance suggesting where a bus route should go at a public bus review meeting (such as have recently been held).

In some cases the ‘political’ can indeed result in an inferior network and service for most. This could be due to residents not wanting buses in their street, a handful wanting to retain a bus route deviation that makes the service slower and less legible for the majority, or a group who succeeds in obtaining a new route, even though that bus would have met a greater need or attracted higher patronage elsewhere.

Nevertheless there is also a principle that those in remote pockets (even if the ‘remoteness’ is due to a developer’s transit-hostile street layout) should have some service on social equity grounds. This principle is strongly supported (sometimes at the cost of frequency and directness) by the Department of Transport and the Minister (who reiterated the ‘within 400 metres of public transport’ rule last night).

I suspect that many would be surprised at the number of route rationalisations that a business-minded public transport planning authority with a strong charter to maximise patronage for its budget might make. It would certainly mark a reversal of the last few years, which have seen the combination of (a) significant funding of new services, including some new routes that partly overlap existing routes, (b) limited development of headway harmonised timetables and non-SmartBus frequent service corridors, and (c) a reluctance to prune existing routes that may have outlived their justification for existence.

If the experience of Perth’s bus route reform (an ongoing process, but started in earnest in the late 1990s) is anything to go by, a transport planning agency would likely to concentrate on (b) and (c), much of which requires little funding. Funds for (a) would likely be gladly accepted, but this depends on the government of the day (hence the political component will never be avoided).

Evidence such as patronage and patronage potential data is cold comfort to those who have lost their local service, especially if mobility impaired. However some may gain if frequency and connectivity on existing nearby routes is improved. This is why it’s better to delete superflous routes (eg 694) at the same time that existing routes (688) are boosted so that even those left with a longer walk at least gain from higher frequency).

There will be some changes that may never be accepted and there will be constant political pressure for their reversal. This could well come from the very politicians who purported to support an service planning agency.

Although we have few (if any) routes that run on a commercial basis, an approach we could follow is to have most planning on the basis of patronage potential and strategic network importance, along with supplementation for ‘social needs’ routes. These may be less direct and frequent but provide coverage to pockets that cannot be justified as being part of the core network. To a large extent even funding for these would likely be politically determined, proving again that the political cannot (and probably should not) entirely be taken out of public transport.

A bumper crop of transport announcements

All long-standing projects about to come to fruition.

901 Yellow Orbital extended from September 26

A SmartBus service across the outer northern and eastern suburbs, including the first substantial standard fare service to Melbourne Airport.

Doncaster Area Rapid Transit starts October 4

Four new SmartBus routes for Manningham - Melbourne's only municipality without trains or trams.

New train timetable from October 10

Some extra peak trains on the northern group, but the big winner are users of the Frankston line. Weekday off-peak train frequency boosted from 15 to 10 minutes. Weekday evening frequency up from 30 to 20 minutes until after 10pm.

2010 state election - they're off and running

With the Federal election passed (albeit with some current uncertainty due to the hung result), focus will now shift to state politics, with the Victorian poll less than three months away.

Transport is likely to be a prominent election issue.

Melbourne is fast growing in population and needs a transport system that can cope. Scarce space in our cities and national resource security require alternatives to building roads and driving everywhere. Our rail system is fragile, with infrastructure maintenance and service levels lagging modern expectations. Increased traffic levels are slowing trams while legibility and connectivity remain challenges for our bus network. And our ageing population will require improved access to services, especially in regional areas.

The incumbent Labor Party will go to the people with parts of the Victorian Transport Plan coming to fruition (eg the Green Orbital SmartBus which started earlier this year). Labor has also promised additional staffed stations. Expect a flurry of other Ministerial announcements in coming days, weeks or months. Labor has not updated its website since the 2006 election, and their Linking Victoria transport policy from then is still available.

The main opposition Liberal Party has made public announcements on security staffing at railway stations and a feasability study into a rail extension to Rowville. However like Labor they do not yet have a publicly available transport policy for the 2010 election. As coalition partners The Nationals support the Liberal's station security initiatives and revoke Labor's inner-suburban clearway rules.

Bouyed by its strong federal result, including is first lower house win at a general election, the Greens are demanding the transport ministry should there be a hung parliament. Its leader, Greg Barber, has been a vocal member of the Legislative Council Select Committee on Train Services and supports an independent public transport authority to plan services. The policy tab on the Victorian Greens website takes the reader to their national website and policies, with nothing specific for Victoria.

Hence none of the parties yet have a coherent published transport policy for the people's consideration in November. The best we can do to date is to study their announcements and examine any past records in government (which The Greens do not yet have).

If the past is anything to go by, the next few months will be an exciting time for public transport. Transport is so tied to the political cycle so major things happen around election time. For example late 2006/early 2007 saw upgraded regional rail, the start of extended bus operating hours across Melbourne, a new SmartBus route, Zone 3 abolished and fares integrated across regional and NightRider services.

As in 2006 some of the earliest advised changes have been to fares; this time we have seen Zone 1 extended to the ends of the longest tram routes and free weekend travel for Seniors myki users from January 1, 2011. Next will be bus changes. We have already seen upgrades for Melton and some for the Mt Dandenong area will start on Monday.

Most interest though will be on the proposed 'big ticket' bus improvements of DART (four new SmartBus routes for the Doncaster area) and bus upgrades for Casey-Cardinia (large outer suburban areas currently with somewhat limited service). More trains are being delivered and a new train timetable is expected later this year on some lines.

Bedtime reading: Parliamentary Committee on Train Services

The Legislative Council's Select Committee on Train Services has just issued its first interim report. The paper includes the report itself, voting results on its more controversial findings and minority reports from some committee members.

The media soon jumped on to the report’s findings. It was sometimes treated it as if it came from an authoritative source, compiled after a careful evaluation of evidence of witnesses called before it.

Despite the quality of presentations from witnesses (who were all leaders in their fields) a parliamentary committee report does not have the same rigour as (say) an independent inquiry or royal commission (although some processes eg the use of expert witnesses and the invitation of submissions appear similar).

Instead ‘findings’ of parliamentary committees are more likely to be ‘opinions’ supported by the majority of its members. Notwithstanding the effort that witnesses and others made when writing submissions, the broad content of parliamentary committee reports are largely determined by the party affiliations of its members.

This particular committee had a majority of non-government members. Tension between them was sometimes apparent to witnesses who heard some of the asides. These differences intensified through the pages of the interim report (and in particular voting on the wording of findings) that reveal a committee sharply divided on party lines.

Parliamentary committees reporting on controversial matters tend to follow a common script. The government MPs seek to present the government in the best light. The opposition MPs seek to discredit the government, while seeking to remove criticism of their own period in office. And minor party members may use the process to boost their own profile.

The committee’s greatest impact may well have been during the hearings (that generated significant publicity). The previous rail operator opposed an upgrading of the under-rated Comeng train air conditioners and had neither obligation nor funding to do so. However the upgrades, funded by government, were announced as part of the new train contracts signed in late 2009. Also coinciding with the new contracts (which brought in a new operator) was a doubling of track, signal and overhead maintenance expenditure.

As for the future, parliamentary committees tend to have a life of their own. This committee’s scope has extended to ticketing, meaning that public transport will be under parliamentary scrutiny for some time yet.

Two loops: Feedback and the City

In teaching creative thinking, Edward De Bono often discusses humorous or whimsical concepts that when refined can become practical ideas.

A example is building a factory downstream of itself. The practical idea here is that since it needs clean water the factory would have a vested interest in not polluting if its outlet was required to be upstream of its inlet.

Expressed as a more general principle, this is the idea of building short and direct feedback loops so that consequences of poor behaviour or decisions are more swiftly felt by those responsible. Or, more diplomatically, corrective action can more quickly be taken if circumstances change.

While the City Loop's noon reversals and weekend variations do not make it the most passenger-friendly system, its vagarities do make it a very efficient feedback loop.

It wasn't always like this, though.

Ten or so years ago, if like most Melburnians you lived in the south or east and commuted to the city, working near Parliament Station was an advantage. You had the shortest trip in and the shortest trip out. Train patronage was higher than its nadir c1980, but not that much more. And reliability was generally pretty good in the early 2000s.

Then numbers started growing above trend. Not just 1 to 2 per cent a year (roughly in line with population growth) but double digits for successive years. The growth forecasts promised by the franchise bidders came true, but not all survived to see it. Extra services were added but the growth in passenger numbers outstripped the increase in service provided by five to one if not more. So trains got more crowded and the network became more fragile and prone to delays.

Which group of passengers were most affected by this trend? The answer is, for those who live in the south and east, those boarding at Parliament in the afternoon. For Parliament is their last city station. Even a short suspension of the regular train throughput can leave people behind on the platform during peak times. Boarding at Parliament is like drawing the short straw and some even walk to Flinders Street, despite the extra time in the loop.

Who works near Parliament? Politicians first spring to mind. But equally important are departmental officers and ministerial staff. They experience the joys and pitfalls of suburban train travel first-hand. And, despite recent press, transit's modal share amongst CBD-based bureaucrats is still rather high and exceeds that for the population as a whole, many of whom work in suburbs with free parking and less public transport access.

And so orders for 38 new trains, and, more recently, new trams, have been placed. Subject to available line capacity and power, their commissioning will allow substantial service improvements. While unfair to accord it full credit, the City Loop and its mostly clockwise pm peak pattern appear to have played a role in forming a rather effective feedback loop.

Station Park & Rides - is there a higher and better use?

A term popular in property valuation and development circles is 'highest and best' use. In commercial real estate the value of land depends on the use to which it can be put. If it has high rental, development or subdivision potential it is worth more than land that does not possess these attributes.

Failure to develop land for its 'highest and best use' represents an 'opportunity cost' for the owner. The owner may still profit from its existing use, but the return will be lower. But if the return the owner is getting is at a lower risk, or if it is taken in a non-financial form such as a better standard of living derived from living on a large block, then they may be quite content not to develop further.

But where publicly owned land is used for marginal, low-return uses, it is only prudent that one asks if it has a higher and better use. In this case the utility may be measured in financial terms, social terms or a mixture.

Parking space at stations is a case in point. Its provision may attract passengers who find driving to the station preferable to walking, cycling or taking a bus. The land may be useful to keep in reserve for future infrastructure, such as extra tracks, stabling, passing loops or bus interchanges.

On the other hand, because parking is uncharged, it returns no direct income to the railways and so may incur opportunity costs such as foregone rental income (if the land was developed), lower bus patronage or reduced walkability.

To try to quantify opportunity costs, one needs to assess both capital and income gains possible from a 'higher and better use' for park and ride land. This needs to be compared to the maintenance costs of park and ride, and if a park and ride is being built or expanded, capital costs as well.

These factors vary by area; a park and ride in a high-land value inner or bayside suburb imposes a much higher opportunity costs than using a scrap of otherwise unusable land near an outer or ex-urban station. It's also worth mentioning that even with different types of parking there are differences; substituting high-turnover short-term shopper parking for low-turnover long-term commuter parking benefits local retailers so probably represents a higher and better use, at least for the local area.

While coarse, the following back of the envelope calculations may assist in estimating opportunity costs.

The first thing is to look at the cost of park & ride. The Victorian Transport Plan has a $60 million program. 1700 new spots are mentioned, but these are only part of the program, so to claim $35 000 per spot sounds excessive. However a figure less than half that is mentioned here. The cost in Perth appears to be a bit over $10 000 per bay. Passengers contribute up to a maximum of around $2000 in fares annually, which buys unlimited travel in Zones 1 and 2.

The other input is the land itself. Wikipedia reckons you should allow 30 square metres per average parking spot, including circulation areas and landscaping. In other words, 100 parking spots equates to about 3000 square metres, or 0.3 hectare.

How much is the land worth? This varies greatly depending on the locality, use and zoning. But going on residential values, $400-500k will buy a house on a 600 square metre block in a median suburb. If we take the land component as being $300k per block, then that's a value of $500 per square metre. Land near a station may be regarded as undesirable due to noise and traffic despite its convenience. So it could be worth less - maybe $300 - 400 per square metre. That is unless its development potential makes it more rather than less attractive. Anyway, let's say the 0.3 ha is worth $1 million, which is very conservative.

How does this relate to the 100 parkers and riders? They're getting exclusive use of a million dollar asset for 10 hours per day. Based on a land value of $10k per spot and an imputed commercial rental return of 10% pa, they are getting a 'free lunch'. 10% of $10k is $1000 per year, or over 50% of their fare (which ought to be going onto running the service). And this does not include the capital costs required to build the car park.

Having done the costs, let's get to the opportunities. What can you do with 0.3 hectare, or 3/4 acre in the old money? It's good for five houses on standard 600m2 blocks, fifteen townhouses or villas each with generous courtyards. Stack said units to make a 3-storey block and we're up to 40+ flats.

Assuming $400k per house, $300k per unit, or $250k per flat, that's a developed site value of $2 million with houses, $4.5 million with units or $10 million with flats.

With a 5% rental yield on the above prices, annual rental revenue would be about $100k for the houses, $225k for the units or $500k for the flats. While we have over 200 suburban stations, if just 20 could be developed, the potential rental income would be in the low millions, or the financial equivalent of hundreds if not thousands more commuters buying Zone 1+2 full fare yearly tickets.

Good design could incorporate improved amenity, for instance passive surveillance of the station precinct. Less NIMBY-minded councils may even provide a waiver on car space requirements in return for a portion of the development being for social housing or (say) a womens refuge.

While there would be a loss of parking spots, this would have to be balanced against the increased population with the station on their doorstep who'd likely on average use the train more, and not just for work trips and the gains possible with improved feeder buses and bicycle facilities.

All things considered, it appears that park and ride may represent close to the 'lowest and worst' land use at many station locations and incur opportunity costs that are not always recognised.

The ever-expanding drivers licence

Apart from the design of our streets and cities, there is nothing that celebrates 'car culture' more than the status accorded to the drivers licence.

The drivers licence started as a tool for the policing of motoring. Since it became a plastic card with a photo it has emerged as a virtual ticket to adulthood.

While statistics are not kept, the 'non-driving' uses of a licence as a means of identification outstrip their intended 'traffic policing' role by over ten to one.

For example, drivers licences receive consideration in the following:

Enrolling to vote Rules have been changed so that non-licence holders must jump through more hoops than licence holders to enrol to vote. The Youth Action and Policy Association (NSW) claims that this could disenfranchise many young people.

Opening a bank account or getting a loan Financial institutions will only deal with people who have satisfied a 100-point check. Drivers licences usually contribute 40 points to this.

Signing up for a mobile phone plan Here a passport or drivers licence is the starting point and has priority over credit, Medicare or proof of age cards. Even prepaid phones need ID, even though the Productivity Commission doesn't think it stops fraud.

Hire a video A drivers licence is a pre-requisite for this DVD and pizza deal

Renting a house or unit Tenancy application forms produced by real estate agents often require drivers licence information

Some jobs in public transport Even if one can make their own transport arrangements for early/late shifts, some have claimed that recruiters exclude non-licence holders. Others have been more fortuate and it's reassuring that it has not hindered the state's transport chief.

This list is not exhaustive and many other cases where a licence is requested can be found. It is however sufficient to illustrate the point above, namely that drivers licences are most often used for other than their original intended purpose.

Why is a drivers licence so widely accepted? Firstly more people have them than passports. About 85 to 90% of adults aged between 20 and 59 hold one (with lower proportions for younger and older adults). They fit into one's wallet, and most people carry them most of the time, along with their credit or debit card. Especially in places where most people drive for most of their trips.

Drivers licences also have a photo on them and are always individually issued. This makes them more favoured than Medicare cards which have no photo and can have family members listed. The failure of Gareth Evans' 'Australia Card' in 1987 and the subsequent creation of the 100-points financial ID system a few years later only strengthened the status of the drivers licence.

To be fair, there exist proof of age cards that look like drivers licences. These aren't as widely accepted and provide a second-class form of ID for non-licence holders. A Proof of Age card won't help with enrolling to vote, for example. Even where they are mentioned, proof of age cards may be considered a lower form of ID with fewer points. And it is not known whether they will feature advanced security measures of new drivers licences such as facial recognition.

How does any of this relate to public transport and growing its role?

The first is the 'TravelSmart' angle - where good walkability, bike tracks and public transport services exist we should encourage people to consider using them rather than reflexively reach for the car keys or all trips. Breaking down cultural and institutional impediments such as tax rules that favour driving are important here.

Then there is winning the patronage of youth. For a decade or so after the 1960s/1970s collapse in public transport use, a significant number of children still cycled or walked to school. But school amalgamations, 'stranger danger', the two-car household and the growth of private schools beyond walking distance from home all reduced this share. Today more children rely on 'Mum's taxi' and fewer have experience with navigating their area on foot, by bike or on public transport.

Hence it becomes more important that youth have a period in young adulthood of transport independence without a car. Each year young adults delay getting their licence because public transport is good enough for their transport needs must be regarded as a compliment to the system. And we should encourage such 'TravelSmart' thinking, given the environmental, urban amenity and other benefits of such choices.

If young people have no need for a drivers licence they should not be forced to get one. Doing so should be more a lifestyle choice (related to their transport needs) instead of being socially mandated, considered a rite of adulthood or a means to satisfy onerous identification requirments.

Where jobs do not involve driving, employers should not discriminate against non-licence holders, although the employee should of course be responsible for honouring their allocated work roster and any variations.

And the licences themselves should only be used for their original motoring-related use, with legislation guaranteeing that reasonable alternatives have equal weight as ID for non-motoring purposes.

City lobbyists go for cheap

Each age seems to bring a catch-all adjective that vested-interest spruikers use to advocate bad policy ranging from the merely ineffective to the to the positively harmful.

The last century has seen the rise and fall of such buzz-terms as 'scientific', 'electric', 'space-age', and 'computerised' to describe products. After faith in modernity wilted, 'natural', 'community' or (in Melbourne) 'liveable' became big. More recently almost everyone wants to dub their pet policy as 'environmental' or 'green'. And with the wish to give silly schemes false respectability and confine debate to 'experts', 'economically modelled' has also risen as a selling-point. Single-issue advocates try to retain their message, only changing their justifications with the times.

Today's Herald Sun contains an article where the Committee for Melbourne advocates for free city public transport.

And, right to script, the hallowed 'economic modelling' makes it into paragraph one. Environment comes in a little lower, in paragraph 4.

My standard procedure when faced with such articles is to go to the source, where additional information can often be found. For many 'news' stories start as media releases from vested interests; only a minority are uncovered by snooping journalists. To be newsworthy, these releases have to be based around some event, even if manufactured, such as the release of a 'report' (easily arranged) or a voice grab from a sympathetic academic.

Well I couldn't find the cited 'economic modelling' on the Committee for Melbourne website. Nevertheless, it contained several other relevant articles, such as their year-long lobby for free city transport and support for concession fares for overseas students.

On the other side of the ledger is professed concern about what they call creaking public transport and limiting sprawl by concentrating development along public transport corridors.

Notice how they want a buck each way? One one hand they want a stronger role for public transport, but do not agree that city passengers ought to contribute to its operation. More than anywhere else in the state, the CBD cannot operate without public transport, yet the city's supposed advocates appear unwilling to grant it a revenue stream to keep it strong.

Some claims in favour of free transport made in the article are rubbery.

Since statewide fare integration in 2007, the country visitor coming in on V/Line already enjoys free transport, not just in the CBD, but Zone 1 as well. Similarly those from the suburbs will not benefit since their daily, weekly or multi-ride tickets effectively include free CBD transport.

Then there's tourists and the benefits they bring to the city.

$6.80 for a Zone 1 daily ticket is not unreasonable. No tourist whose spent $1000 to fly here is going to curtail their expenditure on stuffed koalas, river cruises or meals because of that fare. Instead that sort of expenditure is quite inelastic, which my brand of economic model says brings Victoria more money, not less. Plus there's the theory of sunk costs, which means that if you've paid for a ticket you'd want to get some use from it. So you grab the tram to Luna Park, pop up to the zoo, visit Scienceworks at Newport and the rest, eating and drinking all the way. Good value for them and better value for us, improving transit's cost-recovery off-peak.

Of course some will benefit from free CBD transport, but they're not particuarly deserving.

For example drivers and parking operators will be winners. By parking on the CBD edge they will have free transport. If this takes longer haul trips from public transport then this harms patronage. Some short walking trips may move to public transport if the latter was free. Neither makes free transport particuarly 'green'.

Overall the Committee for Melbourne seems to be wanting 'cheap transport' more than 'better transport'. Increasingly paid for by others, of course. This is even though 'better transport' is more effective than 'cheap transport' in bringing people to the city, and hence increasing the latter's commerce. Rather than seemingly having a bet each way, this is the horse they should be backing.

Walking a fine line: A look at Victoria Walks

You may have noticed a new link added to the sidebar - Victoria Walks.

While I've previously posted on pedestrian issues, the emphasis has been on walking to access public transport and transfer between services.

However walking also needs to be regarded as a transport mode in its own right, and not just as a means of recreation or physical exercise. Walking even beats public transport for some trips. The distance where walking is faster ranges from about 1 to 5 kilometres, with higher figures in pedestrian-hostile locations, or where where transit has limited frequency, connectivity, directness and coverage.

How significant is walking as transport? The census question about transport asks about the journey to work. This is the very journey that people are least likely to walk and walking's modal share is low. Counting all trips would probably give a higher share for walking but it is still often dismissed as a 'minor access mode'.

What are the main threats to walking's attractiveness as transport? Key is bad urban and traffic system design, with examples being missing footpaths, absence of crossing facilities, buildings that don't address the street or have easy footpath access, long traffic light cycles or excessive use of roundabouts, blank walls facing footpaths and poor passive surveillance. The design of our suburbs, covering matters such as a permeable street grid, location of transit stops, and co-siting of activity centres around transport nodes are also important. The costs of designing new suburbs along these lines is negligible, and even retrofitting existing suburbs need not be expensive given the benefits. There are also social attitudes, for instance a perception of being unsafe when walking. Just as with public transport safety more people walking tends to create a virtuous spiral of 'safety in numbers'.

What is walking's political representation like? Drivers have the RACV. Cyclists have Bicycle Victoria. Public transport passengers have the PTUA. Even though there are more pedestrians than either drivers and public transport passengers, Victorian pedestrians have no organised lobby to advance their interests (whereas NSW has the Pedestrian Council).

As walking costs the user nothing, there is almost no 'walking industry' or 'vested interests'. For example, it requires no ailing car industry for governments to protect with tariffs, subsidies or loan guarantees. It involves no new trains, trams or buses. Plus there are no multimillion dollar franchises, operator contracts or powerful unions at stake. The upgrade of suburban streets to become walkable grids would generate jobs for road construction companies, but these firms could just as easily be building new roads, so these companies don't have a particular vested interest in pedestrian improvement projects either.

Does the lack of political representation for a particular transport mode automatically mean that nothing in that field gets done? Not necessarily. Though Perth's 'Friends of the Railways' were successful in getting the Fremantle line restored, and this fostered the biggest suburban rail revival of any Australian capital, it appears to have been academics and sympathetic governments who maintained the momemtum to complete a series of major projects including electrification, Joondalup, Thornlie and Mandurah. WA appears not to have a passenger lobby group as prominent as the PTUA in Melbourne (and those that are there appear to have been offshoots from a reasonaly strong environment movement, eg STCWA) who would have been expected to advocate such extensions.

The situation as regards walking in Melbourne is a little different. As mentioned above there is no prominent pedestrian lobby. University transport academics occupy high profiles in public debate but public transport and urban planning tend to be their favourite topics. Other matters such as walking and freight transport appears to be less advocated, or at least are less reported in the papers.

Is suburban walkability a significant part of state transport plans and budgets? When considering this allowance needs to be given for the involvement of both local and state governments. The various state transport plans have typically involved road and public transport infrastructure projects, with a swing towards the latter in the Victorian Transport Plan. Pedestrian access was not a major part of this plan, or of the debate that preceded it (about the Eddington report, tunnels and surging rail patronage). While there exists a Local Area Access Program that supports pedestrian access projects, its budget appears to reflect the extent to which walking is regarded as a serious transport mode.

The lack of a lobby and academics to lead debate, the relative absence of media on pedestrian access topics (outside the occasional article in the local paper) and the absence of a significant program to make existing suburbs walkable all indicate unmet needs. These only intensify when the social and fitness benefits of walking are added.

Stepping into this gap is the Victoria Walks website. This turns out to be a registered charity sponsored by VicHealth. VicHealth is a health promotion foundation established by parliament as part of the Tobacco Control Act (1987). Although funded by cigarette taxes, its health promotion goes well beyond the Quit Campaign to includes areas such as physical activity, which is where Walking School Buses and Victoria Walks come in.

To reflect its sponsor's aims, the motivation behind Victoria Walks appears to be the health benefits of walking. This is much like how cycling and cycle tracks is seen as a recreation as much as a transport mode. And some might see buses in some areas mainly as social welfare, since their ridership is predominantly 'captive passengers'. Which leaves cars, trucks and trains as the 'serious' transport modes deserving of 'real dollars' through various transport plans and administered by a dedicated department.

What is the content of Victoria Walks? There is one thing it isn't; it's not a simple exhortation for everyone to walk at least 30 minutes a day.

Instead it emphasises a 'bigger picture' or 'community engagement' model. If psychology can be said to emphasise the individual's mind and sociology society's values, Victoria Walks is clearly favours the social, the community and the 'active' (politically as much as physically).

Hence site readers are encouraged to do 'walking audits' of their neighbourhood and form 'walking action groups' to 'engage government'. There are many case studies from parts of Melbourne and around the world to open minds as to what can be done. And the achievements of Walking Action Groups, such as questions in parliament and replies from councils, are highlighted for further encouragement.

Although its excellent website contains much useful background information, Victoria Walks is not a lobby group in itself. After all its funding source effectively makes it an arm of government, and one area trying to lobby another part would look odd. Nevertheless it does engage in what I would term 'advocacy support'. They won't directly lobby or give specific advice but the website acts as an enabler, encourager and mouthpiece for others to do so.

Victoria Walks is an example of initiative on an aspect of transport coming from outside the department ostensibly responsible for it. The progress of it, and particularly any activity it spawns, will be well worth watching.

Legislative Council Select Committee on Train Services

After a period where public submissions were sought, the Legislative Council Select Committee on Train Services held its first hearing today.

Those called before the hearing were from the Department of Transport in the morning and Connex /Mainco/United in the afternoon. They gave short opening addresses followed by answers to questions from committee members. Media and about 20 members of the public witnessed the proceedings.

The Department of Transport emphasised the massive patronage growth on the state's passenger railways. Our 50% increase (metropolitan) and 70% increase (country) in the last 4 years outstripped all other states. On some measures at least Melbourne has overtaken Sydney's CityRail network, with us now having more peak trains in the busiest hour than Sydney.

This growth lengthened station dwell times and resulted in reduced punctuality (dropping from 97% obtained in 2002-3 to over 90% most months/most lines today). One way of looking at is is that trains are 2 or 3 times more likely to be late now than in 2002. However 90% is still regarded as an achievement in the context of unprecedented patronage growth and was described as the 'real story about Melbourne trains'. Platform dwell times (rising from 30 seconds 5 years ago to up to 75 seconds now) were a major contributor to late running.

Main drivers of patronage growth (which ocurred after decades of decline, stagnation or slow growth) included high metropolitan population growth, a strong economy with rising CBD employment and high petrol prices. More people were using the railway by choice, there was no sign of slowing demand and the '20% by 2030' mode share target was likely to be met. Once people changed to rail they remained with rail, which was a vote of confidence in the service.

The system of governance, based on government funding and ownership of infrastructure but private operation through a franchise agreement was defended. It was pointed out that Yarra Trams operated under similar arrangements.

The implication was that the tram system (though significantly delayed by car traffic) has generally operated smoothly without political or media attention (compared to metro trains). Also the train system had high reliability in 2002-3, two or three years after franchising started.

Hence, the department stated, the 2008 summer failures could not be seen as being caused by governance arrangements, contrary to the claims of un-named but well-known 'transport academics'. Nevertheless it was acknowledged that train reliability during this period was below legitimate passenger expectations and that the government was ultimately responsible for the performance of the system.

Operators had put in 'agressive' bids in 1999 (in order to win business). This model, based on diminishing public subsidy and (as it turned out premature) projections of patronage growth, proved unsustainable, even after a cash injection in 2002. When National Express asked for no the government refused and it quit, giving a week's notice. Refranchising in 2004 led to the reunification of both the train and tram networks, the creation of Metlink and a more secure financial footing for the operators. The savings (compared to government operation) proved to be 'illusory' but the Auditor Generals Office reported that the new franchises delivered fair value for money. Services ran through the NX receivership period without disruption to passengers, while driver training resumed (this had stopped and caused a subsequent shortage).

While punctuality had declined from the 97% obtained in 2002/3, it still normally exceeded 90%. This was considered a creditable result given the high patronage growth. Patronage is both an expression of success but also a challenge for service reliability due to the previously mentioned difficulties of crowding and longer dwell times.

What was being done to accommodate growth? Some extra services have been added and maintenance has been increased, but this was 'sweating' the infrastructure (ie being worked harder). More recently governments have announced significant upgrade programs (including South Morang and Sunbury extensions, which also include upgrades elsewhere along those lines) with a lead time applying. Upgrades also aim to simplify the variety of sinalling equipment to improve response time and there is a program to replace timber sleepers with concrete.

In hindsight more could have been done to address overcrowding. However at that time governments had other priorities and it was considered that the case for major rail improvements on the strength of a year's high patronage growth was less strong then than now. The high investment now, while it has some lag time, is regarded as appropriate and one 'can't complain'.

Many questions were asked about Comeng train air conditioning since their failure reduces summer train reliability. The problem here is that these often cut out when temperatures exceed 34.5 degrees C. When specified in the 1970s the debate then was whether to air condition the new trains or not, rather than what type of air conditioning.

Summer 2008/9 was regarded as exceptional, due to the number of days over 40 degrees C, which is more now than when they were specified. This is one reason why the problems this year were more significant than previous summers. It was acknowledged that beyond basic maintenance, the operator had no contractural obligation to make them more suitable for our temperatures. Trials were being run (involving at least 2 trains) and the result of these will influence whether any decision is made to retrofit. With regard to this the Department specified a number of reasons why this might not be a sensible use of funds, including (i) hot days are rare, (ii) the trains are old with limited future life, (iii) there are service consequences of trains being out, and (iv) it's not cheap.

Air conditioning wasn't the only cause of service failures. Widespread carelessness around our 180 suburban level crossings cause incidents that can disrupt trains for an entire peak period (or longer). 10-15% of delays are due to infrastructure, and of this 70 to 90% is due to signalling faults. Point failures can also interrupt services.

Another persistent line of questioning was the extent to which the Department takes an interest in all incidents that cause service failure. Parliamentarians wanted the Department to receive regular detailed reports, and possibly prepare prevention plans to prevent reoccurrence.

In reply the department said it received briefings and system performance information in agregate form. However the operator and department do not go through the reasons for all 14000 delays each month. This appeared not to satisfy some parliamentary members given the follow-up questions about specific incidents.

I suspect that this because of aspects of the franchise agreements and the operator/department relationship did not get fully fleshed out. In the absence of direct questions, on this, I suspect that the department holds the operator to account on broad figures derived from monitoring of operational performance (ie cancellations/late running). This includes penalties for cancellations or lateness.

The outsourcing aspect of franchising means that how good performance is achieved is up to the operator. If they can find a cost-effective way to reduce cancellations (for example) then the statistics the department receives improves and the penalties are less. The operator is rewarded for their innovation. Besides it's presumed that the operator knows more about the system than the department, so are in a better position to specify which improvements deliver most bang for the buck (eg the revised fleet maintenance plan later cited by the operator).

On the department's part, the mechanics of how the operator does it seems to be less important to the department than whether a specified performance is achieved or not. This appears to be a design feature of franchising, with the potential advantages described above (provided incentives/penalties are set to make improved performance worthwhile). It also prevents the department trying to 'micromanage' train operations, and proposing fixes that might be less effective than an alternative proposed by the operator (who has a financial incentive to achieve the results).

This could make some non-government politicians impatient with the Department, who might not be able to instantly answer questions about specific incidents (eg how can delays at 5am be due to 'passenger loading').

Some politicians seemed to want the department to 'supervise more' and 'do more' at the operational level (eg upgrading Comeng air conditioners and platform staff were suggested) rather than leave to to the franchisee (who is taking other steps to improve performance, eg its revised Fleet Maintenance Plan and employment agreements).

Direct Department intervention in operational areas (while it has occurred in some cases eg additional late night services being funded or driver training) would go against franchising's philosophy at its purest, where the franchisee controls resource allocation, subject only to meeting performance and safety standards. The current 'franchising model' may have a lesser role for the department compared to alternatives such as a 'fee for service' contract, or direct government running.

It seems to me that franchising for the Department could be described as it being a contract manager who sets specifications, but leaves the solving of day to day problems with the operator. However time was too short to be articulated in any answers to the questions. Nevertheless such an explanation could have benefited some parliamentarians, who, I suspect may be unfamiliar with our operational arrangements and the extent to which this would shape the Department's responses on questions such as detailed performance information, Comeng air conditioners and the desirability of platform staff to reduce dwell time (currently being trialed at Parliament Station).

A question was asked about travel origins and destinations. The Department was doing work on this through the VISTA study. Many trips were local or to the next municipality and for these buses and trams met these needs. As to the effect of bus improvements on rail patronage, it was stated that the two may well be related. However modal interchange was not currently high and most trips would be seperate bus or train, rather than bus+train. However the current bus reviews were cited as a means of improving service co-ordination and ensuring buses met trains at stations. As to the future, the Victorian Transport Plan was prepared in parallel with 'Melbourne @ 5 million', with the emphasis on early provision of transport services.

A number of rail infrastructure questions were asked. These included the $650m costings for South Morang (amount is a 'best professional estimate' and includes a package of 3 grade seperations, stabling at Eltham and other improvement for the Clifton Hill group), the desirability of standard gauge (not a high priority for passenger, and seperating freight and passenger traffic was more important), and expansion gaps in rail (continuous welded was world-best), Regional Fast Rail costs (higher costs went to renew infrastructure found to be in poor condition), most stressed section (Sunshine - Footscray, with Regional Rail Link and Sunbury electrification assisting).

The Department's submission

Connex appreciated the opportunity to appear at the committee so that it could hear the views of those professionally concerned with running the system. It also sought to articulate the view of rail workers and dispel myths from 'transport academics'.

Our system was described as unlike a dedicated metro. This is due to it sharing track with freight and country trains and the large number of level crossings. There has also been less recent investment to the network. It is however large by world standards, with about double the track km of the Paris Metro.

Financial performance and efficiency was described as good - with sources for this being the Auditor General's report on train franchising and comparisons with the Sydney and Brisbane networks. Our costs per passenger were less than both of these while patronage growth was higher, reaching 214 million trips pa and up by 80% since 1999, on a train fleet only 9% bigger, increasing the number of load breaches. An extra 1500 services per week have been added in this time.

Other major achievements Connex cited include reunifying the network after the exit of National Express and the growth of two incompatible networks. Train services were maintained during the refranchising, but a driver shortage due to the previous operator's lack of recruitment prevented service increases during this time.

Customer service initiatives included 'Meet the Managers' and 'We Hear You', but this was not a major part of the presentation.

Generally Connex enjoyed industrial peace (unlike the Met in the 1980s/early 1990s). A Memorandum of Understanding was signed in 2008. However disagreements over this led to industrial problems which exacerbated heat-related cancellations during the summer of 2008/9 as many were considered preventable. The matter went before the Industrial Relations Commission and both sides have accepted its finding.

Much discussion time was spent on the improvements that will ensue due to the acceptance of the revised Fleet Management Plan in conjunction with more maintenance staff. The former would allow trains with certain minor faults to continue until the end of the day's peak period (rather than be taken out of service immediately). The falling rate of cancellations during 2009 has been attributed to the application of this plan. As an example, just 0.4% of trains were cancelled in June 2009, which is comparable to the good results obtained in the 2000-2003 period. The FMP is included in the industrial agreement, so will continue when MTM takes over.

Also agreed was the ability to run trains where one air conditioning unit had failed. Such trains are often still usable with no safety implicatons. These could be run for the remainder of that peak period instead of being cancelled.

There was agreement with the Department that replacement was probably not cost-effective, but the operator was confident that the above measures would result in a more reliable service this summer than last.

Improved maintenance practices have increased the availabilty of more trains, with 94% (or 149) being scheduled to run in the am peak in the current timetable. This represents high utilisation and pressure on the fleet. However relief will come when the new trains start arriving next year.

Apart from air conditioner faults during the heat, other sources of failures include tracks buckling, signal failures (which due to electrical equipment double in hot weather), infrastructure faults, vandalism and loss of power. Like everyone else, trains are susceptible to 'load shedding', ie power cuts where consumption exceeds generating capacity. Connex is negotiating to get priority treatment with the power authorities so that trains can retain power. These discussions are continuing.

A question was asked about platform staff, particuarly to assist wheelchair passengers and otherwise speed boarding. No commitments were made regarding this. However the member was referred to the DDA Action plan and said that the operator was on track to achieve this. In addition a modified 'demonstration train' provided more space for wheelchairs with the decision to modify more trains resting with the Department.

Related to previous comments about the franchise and what it can drive operators to do, was a question about whether it was better to cop a fine or pay for a fix. While paying fines for poor performance was a problem, this was a part of the contract and was accepted as such. In addition because the operators receive a portion of the farebox revenue the growing patronage increased this part of their revenue, hence offsetting the fine (it was not mentioned whether this was a partial or full offset). In addition the operator receives income from joint ventures with United in infrastructure projects such as North Melbourne Station, Cranbourne stabling and Laverton upgrade.

The sleeper replacement program involves replacing 1 in 4 sleepers. In practice this involves 1 in 1 around curves and 1 in 5 on the straights. Ideally all would be replaced but there are constraints on funding and on the capacity of the factory to produce (100 000 pa available to Connex).

Connex was also asked whether the patronage growth was projected and if preparation was adequate. In hindsight the answer was no. At the time everyone concerned was involved in picking up the pieces from the NX walkout, refranchising, the driver shortage and reunifying the network. The driver shortage remained throughout 2005, while the first double digit patronage rise was in 2006.

Progress however has acelerated in the last few years, bearing in mind that some improvements (eg timetables) might have a 2 year lead time and major infrastructure longer. Connex drew up a plan, with its first major example being the November 2008 timetable. This started to 'untangle the loop' by taking peak period Werribee trains out of the loop and modified the Clifton Hill group pattern. Later improvements involve a more metro-style operation, seperating lines and reducing the crossing of paths. After this the extra trains should allow more services to be run.

Other questions were asked on such topics such as drivers calling in sick (2 hour notice requested), driver numbers (now very close to establishment levels) and who ensures train is operable before start (driver during preparation).

Connex submission

The questions members asked pretty much stuck rigidly to topic. Related matters such as the handling of disruptions and customer service (eg adequacy of passenger information/advice of disruptions/website crashes, possible extra staff training to better handle disruptions and better 'alternative transport' information at stations) were not raised in either the introductory addresses or subsequent questions from committee members. Disruptions can't be prevented, but communication may have helped mitigated their effects.