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.

Urban plans, density and the middle class

Noel Pearson's 2010 John Button Oration (highly recommended - listen here) got me thinking about the relationship between urban plans (such as Melbourne 2030) and the relationship between it and various economic classes (especially the middle class).

To summarise, the intellectual middle class says what ought to be built and the capitalist landowning class goes off and builds, taking a risk in return for a possible profit. While planning regulations (largely drafted and interpreted by the middle-class) have some influence, the capitalist can apply the ultimate sanction, ie choosing not to build if they see no profit. This puts a limit on the strictness (or 'unworkability') of planning regulations, otherwise undersupply will be the result.

Urban planning can be seen as a tussle between a portion of the middle class (either as bureaucrats, academics or activist residents) and the capitalist upper class. The working class has a role as consumers through housing and shopping preferences. There is thus a consumer-producer relationship between the working class and the capitalist (if buying a project home for example), but the relationship between the working class and middle class is very limited.

I previously described Melbourne 2030 as a plan that favours the grouping of certain land uses (cafes, galleries, educational establishments and higher density housing) around transport hubs.

Favoured land uses represent the interests of the humanities-educated portion of the middle class plus some perceived working-class wants (or should haves). The latter being desirable to foster 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Certain other land uses, such as bulky goods retail, fast-food and (especially) light industrial, are not part of the academic's world so tend not to feature prominently in their plans. Ignoring them does not make these uses go away, instead they go to the periphery without public transport or pedestrian access (Tullamarine and Laverton North spring to mind).

Lacking capital, the interested middle classes (especially academics, bureaucrats and council planners) use plans to advance what they see as the public (or is it their?) interest against the capitalist landowning class. To the extent that they are implemented they advance the former group's quality of life and aesthetic sensibilities. A Marxist analysis would also see city planning as part of a broader contest between intellectual and capital, with each group wanting their strength to prevail.

The middle class, even its humanity educated portion, is not homogeneous. As often played out in The Age, it is deeply split on the question of housing density.

There is what I would call the 'technocratic' or 'urbanist' middle class which favours higher densities for a more compact, less sprawling city better able to be served by public transport and other services. A substantial proportion of this group would have lived in or visited overseas cities with higher densities than ours. Some may work in planning. Their arguments are both environmental and economic, with the economic one being an echo of Le Corbusier's vision of cities as being 'machines for living in'. While it is another debate, this group may be quite relaxed about the city's capacity to house a higher population (though being quite well paid they will always be able to afford to live in the city's 'better' areas).

There is common ground between this group and developers (whose profit increases with density, since fixed costs can be spread across more units). The developers need this group to argue their case, while the urbanists need the developers to allow their preferred city form to be built.

Opposed to densification (at least in their backyard) is another faction of the middle class. 'Suburban protectionists' are less enamoured with high-rise and go by names such as 'Save our Suburbs'. This group professes a wish to preserve their neighbourhood's quiet streets, leafy verges and an always-free parking spot in front of the house. High-density is also thought by residents to be associated with crime, especially if 'outsiders not like us' (eg public housing tenants) move in. Hence NIMBYs ('Not in My Back Yard') are vulnurable to accusations of xenophobia or selfishness. While another (though related) debate, protectionists often question the benefits of continued population growth in our big cities, and may propose decentralisation (for others of course) to lessen pressures on our bigger cities.

As homeowners,suburban protectionists' key economic interest is their house value.

This is especially so for the middle-class.

The biggest determinant of wealth in Australia is whether you live in your own home or rent (those who both rent and invest are a small, savvy minority). Poor people are by and large not homeowners, so values are irrelevant to them. Then there's the rich. While they may live in nice homes the genuinely financially independent hold most of their wealth (80 - 99%) in other assets, such as their own businesses, rental properties, shares and the like. In contrast the middle-class person's home is their biggest asset, with most of their other wealth (superannuation) being untouchable until retirement. Hence concern that a development may lower house values is quintessentially a middle-class concern.

The relationship that high density leads to better public transport is also disputed. 2004 - 2008 for instance saw a train patronage boom but no commensurate service increase. And if higher traffic slows buses and trams, their efficiency will fall without priority. Academic support (in the sense that successful public transport is more a function of service planning than density) is offered by Paul Mees of RMIT.

To conclude, planning and the argy-bargy that goes with it, is a game between a protectionist middle class and a capitalist class (legitimised by a technocratic middle class). The middle class has brains but no capital. The capitalists have money and can co-opt as many middle-class minds as necessary. The middle-class itself is divided. Hence we generally get a largely market-oriented plan with some urbanist features such as denser activity centres and protectionist features such a (movable) urban growth boundary.

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.

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.

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.

Why does Sunbury want to be like Melton?

Twelve months ago the Great Sunbury Rail debate was in full swing, with locals prefering their infrequent country trains over a suburban rail extension.

A year later the local paper demonstrates that the NIMBYs, from the mayor down are still at it.

This time they want to rip the city's transit heart out of town and shove it behind the council works depot. The reason cited by the doomsayers is that keeping the station where it is would cause gridlock in town (so electrication will prove popular after all?).

It's worth noting that shops also attract people (and their cars) but no one seems to object much to that. Besides the genuine issues about parking could be addressed through better buses, which work best if they can serve the major town centre and railway station at the one interchange.

Sunbury today has a compact walkable town centre and station precinct with a wide range of shops and services. The local bus operator is well-regarded, and, like Werribee, its timetables connect with the trains. Access is excellent through a centrally-located station and convenient bus interchange. The passenger who liked the convenience of going to the shops after getting off the train understood this practical angle that local politicians sometime miss.

Local councils spend ages lobbying for money from state and federal governments. Sunbury is the only one I know that shuns worthwhile funding, despite the success of similar electrication projects such as Sydenham and Craigieburn. Other suburbs like Berwick and Werribee, although they share a 'main street' rural heritage similar to Sunbury seem more progressive and welcoming of services such as improved schools, hospitals, trains and buses.

The mayor and councillors may wish to take a transport study trip to Melton, including waiting for and riding on (shock horror) public transport, preferably on a winter's day. Here they will see an 'out of town' station similar to what is called for at Sunbury. More careful observation will reveal (i) a station distant from the main town centre, (ii) a shopping mall on the same axis but slightly removed from the 'main street' shopping area, and (iii) local bus routes that are indirect because of the need to connect all suburbs with the station, main street and shopping centre.

It is hoped that on returning to Sunbury everyone will appreciate the many things that it has done right, and that strong public transport in town centres contributes rather than subtracts from their liveability and amenity.

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.

Legislative Council Select Committee on Train Services

Public Hearing: July 21

Read submissions (highly recommended)

Contracts Contracts Contracts

The last couple of days have been big ones for train tram and bus operator contracts. There's enough about trains and trams in the papers and on the DoT's website. But in case you haven't heard, both incumbent operators have lost to MTM (trains) and KDR (trams), who now have 'preferred bidder' status.

What's this about buses, you may ask? Buses have a lower profile than trams and a much lower profile than trains. Similarly, their operating contracts (negotiated a year or so back) are not widely known and have attracted little attention. Bus contracts have always been an arcane topic; one would have to go back to the acrimony of the late 1980s (bus contracts dispute) or the early 1990s (franchising of Met Bus routes to National Bus and Melbourne Bus Link) to find the last time they were prominent.

A report by the Victorian Auditor General's Office sheds light on Melbourne's new bus contracts, their drafting and the role of the Department of Transport. It is recommended reading, and can be downloaded here.

What happens if contracts don't work out? It varies. When National Express walked in 2003 their operations automatically reverted to government operation until the metropolitan portion was relet to Connex the following year. It was a bit different with the regional intrastate network. where the government 'bought back' the rights it had sold to a lessee who couldn't make it pay. Read all about it in another recent report from VAGO.

Senate Committee holds hearing into public transport funding

Evidence from Victorian operators, academics and lobbyists has been presented and is available as a Proof Committee Hansard from the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport.

It's long (107 pages) but is recommended reading. Bear in mind that this Hansard is an uncorrected proof and should be recognised as such.

Melbourne 2030 - is it working?

Any plan to put more people onto public transport has two complementary prongs to bring the two closer together. These are as follows:

* Bring good transport to more people. This may require line or route extensions, longer-running and more frequent services, and bus route reform with key corridors served by Adelaide-style Go-zones. The general aim here is a convenient network of frequent services extensive enough to be within walking distance of most homes and jobs. These matters are within the province of the various transport plans, such as 'Meeting our Transport Challenges' and the 'Victorian Transport Plan'.

* Bring more people to good transport. Amongst other things this requires clustering denser housing, jobs and shops around railway stations, discouraging large-scale developments remote from transit and requiring that all neighbourhoods have walkable, crossable and bus-friendly local streets. These topics, but particularly the activity centres and an urban growth boundary are part of the 'Melbourne 2030' plan.

The two are not independent; achieving the former is easier and cheaper if the latter is done as less route mileage is required to achieve equivalent coverage and resources can be put to better span and frequency instead.

It is important for the long-term relevance of public transport for a plan something like 'Melbourne 2030' to exist and be implemented. Those who think otherwise take Melbourne's rail-based mid-sized suburban centres too much for granted and haven't lived in Perth where the newer stations, mostly located mid-freeway, scarcely have even a milk bar nearby. Hence public transport there is effective for CBD trips to work, but more complex trips (eg shopping after work) will probably requires extra bus trips instead of a simple dash across the road, so are less attractive.

So this brings us to the question - is Melbourne 2030 working?

Bob Birrell's mob at Monash Uni doesn't think so.

His team found that new housing simply wasn't being built around activity centres. Instead it was all happening away from railway lines and transport hubs, contrary to the Melbourne 2030 aims.

To be fair, I should mention that Birrell has always been a critic of denser living, urban growth boundaries and transit-oriented development. Hence the report is a polite 'I told you so'. In this they are like Wendell Cox/Demographia. But unlike developer-funded Wendell, Monash do have academic standing, independence and rigour so they are worth taking notice of.

Even better though is to make one's own observations, and these are documented below.

Exhibit A is Carnegie. This is a Melbourne 2030 major activity centre between two major university campuses, not far from Chadstone Shopping Centre and only a few stations along from affluent suburbs like Toorak and Malvern.

This 5-part video shot last year, shows the suburb's retail and residential building boom. The shopping centre pictured as being under construction is now open. A major new library opened in 2007. Transit improvements that year included extended hours for local bus routes 623 and 627 and the new Route 900 SmartBus along Dandenong Road. There's both development and transit, so count this as a success for Melbourne 2030.

Exhibit B is Frankston, a principal activity centre. Under major redevelopment, this centre is still in transition with many empty shops. Unlike Carnegie it has lost major stores and its retail diversity has declined. For example, Dimmeys, vacated its large premises and is now a small shop in an arcade. And Spotlight has abandoned Frankston CBD altogether, joining a major new auto-based shopping area near Bunnings on Moorooduc Highway. Buses though have gained, with the new 901 SmartBus and longer hours on most local routes.

If 2030 works, Frankston might be a better place to watch a movie or grab a coffee, but as a diverse retail centre it has lost ground. We are not seeking much new residential above CBD shops, and the station's pedshed is poor as there is no exit onto Beach Road from the northern end of the platform.

If we apply Monash's test of whether there is more development further from the station than nearer to it, the shift of activity to the bulky-goods, auto and hardware precinct on the highway do not demonstrate success.

Exhibit C is the Hoppers Crossing area, particularly the shopping area around Hoppers Crossing Station and the Point Cook Town Centre.

The Hoppers Crossing station and retail precinct is pedestrian-hostile and has not thrived. Though designated as a Melbourne 2030 centre, there have been no attempts at denser development, despite its potential, given the station, shops, hospital and nearby university campus. Buses though have benefited; two Hoppers Crossing routes were upgraded to 'minimum standards' (ie 9pm finish time 7 days a week) in 2007.

Point Cook and its shops have grown rapidly in the last couple of years as a heavily car-based development. Its gridlike street patterns are relatively pedestrian and bus friendly. Bus services though limited; after upgrades elsewhere Point Cook is probably the largest remaining area in Melbourne without Sunday buses.

Just like Central Plaza (Altona Meadows) took over from the shops around Laverton Station (now largely abandoned), there is a risk that Point Cook and an ever-expanding Werribee Plaza could take over from the shops around Hoppers Crossing Station. The risk is particularly high due to Hopper's poor walkability and lack of surrounding housing within a 10 minute walk. Much more than Frankston, the Hoppers Crossing station area can be considered to be a missed opportunity at best and a failure at worst.

These examples demonstrate a great deal of truth in the Monash study; despite its intentions, Melbourne 2030 has not materially changed the basic direction of suburban development of new centres. Transit centres that have successfully developed appear to be in high-value inner areas in which housing demand is (by definition) already highest.

Otherwise the economics of higher housing densities (as advocated in 2030) are poor, both from a homebuyer and developer point of view. The further out you go the worse it gets, which explains why the Mitcham Towers development did not proceeed.

From a buyer point of view, one can buy a basic 3 bedroom house on a full sized block in Werribee for as little as $200 000; even less if you look around. This is below replacement cost so represents good buying, especially if you find somewhere so cheap it's only slightly dearer than the land alone. The cheapest established unit in the area (which may or may not be near the station) would sell for (say) $180 000. Hence houses are much better value than units.

To build a new new version of same, the land would cost around $100 000 and construction cost of around $150 000 per unit. A development comprising two units on the block would cost $200 000 per unit. The economics get better when you're building three or more units per block, but even so it will still not be possible to sell a new unit for less than the cost of an established house on a full block, so purchaser value will still be poor. And for the private investor, buying two established $200k houses is likely to return more with less hassle than buying only one house, demolishing then building two units.

To profit from developing you need either high sale prices or low costs/cheap land. Cheap can mean nasty so often new units will be in inconvenient and inaccessible areas such as Tarneit (instead of central Werribee or Hoppers Crossing). While some buyers are willing to sacrifice backyard space for closeness to facilities, in somewhere like Tarneit they get the worst of both worlds. Nevertheless enough people like the sniff of new carpet and paint so these denser places on cheap land still get built, making a net negative contribution to Melbourne 2030 aims.

The classic retiree downsizer will find that selling their $300 000 house and moving into a $250 000 unit will not boost their nest egg after sale costs and stamp duty are deducted. Besides the house would be better for grandchildren to stay and likely appreciate faster in value. So provided they can still look after the house they're better off staying put.

For first homebuyers, outer area houses are hardly dearer than units, so there is no financial imperative to buy the latter. Also from the developers point of view, the low prices on established houses puts a ceiling on what can be charged for new units (it can be a bit more but not $100 000 more). This imposes a tight lid on costs so development is only profitable if land costs are low and big sites are available.

Hence for both buyers and developers the economics of denser housing in outer areas is quite poor, and it's only likely to work in unserved, cheap land areas away from transport. The problem then is that people pay in other ways, through increased car dependence and the atrophy of shopping centres near railway stations. Plus of course the high cost of providing extra kilometres of infrequent, indirect and poorly patronised bus routes.

That is not to say that the principles of Melbourne 2030 activity centres are not worthy, even in outer areas. Hoppers Crossing Station is surrounded by poorly used land that could become improved housing and retail, though probably at the cost of significant land resumption. Bus stop and station pedsheds could be extended through better pedestrian facilities and resuming land to open up culs-de-sacs for better bus routes. And Melbourne 2030 needs to say something about designing bulky goods and industrial areas to be suitable for efficient public transport.

Unfortunately 2030 overlooks these major retail and employment landuses, so betrays its bias towards the cafe-sitting inner-suburban unmanual white collar type (who may guiltily drive to the Nordic IKEA more often than the out-of-mind Bunnings or Spotlight).

The situation is much brighter in the high amenity inner suburbs. A basic 1-bedroom unit might sell for $200 000 to 250 000, while houses might be $500 000 to $800 000 or more. People on average incomes can't generally afford the latter but the area is super-handy so they'll put up with a unit. And it doesn't hurt that many residents are students or professionals who don't care for gardening much either.

Building costs for units are pretty much the same everywhere, innner or outer suburbs. Anything with more than one level (eg 2-storey townhouses with garaging underneath) will cost more. But a new unit or townhouse for $500 000 doesn't look so bad in value to buyers if the house next to it is worth $700 000 (as it could be) rather than $300 000, as in an outer suburb.

And, though the land value is higher, the resale value for the developer is higher still, permitting a better profit to be made. Plus new townhouses will often have garaging, open-plan and two bathrooms that the Edwardian next door won't. Whereas in the outer suburbs most new houses are the now-standard 4 x 2, despite shrinking household sizes. This again means that new units and townhouses in outer suburbs are less advantageous in term of features or better value relative to full-sized houses.

But the situation is more favourable in inner suburbs, and this is why these are redeveloping as someone has identified sufficient buyer appeal to make a profit and hence worth doing.

To summarise, the relative prices of homes and the economics of developing are not helpful to Melbourne 2030 succeeding around outer suburban nodes, which in many cases are only a few kilometres from cheap greenfields land accessible by freeway. In such areas individuals are no better off buying a unit as they're hardly cheaper than houses and are probably not even near the train.

Turning this around may require an unfashionable level of housing-commission style government intervention to resume and develop sites near stations. A problem here is that developers can sometimes be wary of bureaucracy or getting involved in such projects. Plus governments can change or projects can be shelved, so relying too much on them presents a risk bad for business.

Melbourne 2030 also failed because it was not associated with a major capital works program of walking and cycling projects in established suburbs. The only thing it is associated in the public mind is increased density at little direct benefit to existing residents.

Some apparently simple and cheap transport projects like opening culs-de-sacs can cause huge controversy, yet may be essential for efficient buses. Nevertheless this should not be a reason for inaction; bottom-up community consultation clearly supports better urban design and better transit access, and there are many allies in seniors, disability, school and local government that could implement pedestrian amenity projects and assure community support.

Disability access is particularly useful for pedestrians since two birds can be killed with one stone. It will be increasingly realised that although the bus buying program is ensuring that all new buses will be low floor, stops will remain inaccessible. This is because increasing road traffic and a fetish for roundabouts is causing more roads to be uncrossable on foot, let alone wheelchair.

Then there are market-based pricing or tax mechanisms based in incentives rather than direct interventions. I regard vacant land and buildings, particularly near stations, as an opportunity use, crying out for a higher and better use. Sitting on it is not in the public interest; there could even be an argument for vacant land near stations to be taxed more highly than developed land. This could encourage owners to 'develop or sell' rather than hold for speculative purposes.

Density and distribution of jobs is another factor, with a worry being offices in light industrial or bulky goods areas. Offices don't even need the sort of heavy truck access that industrial areas need, and low-density 'business parks' are unnecessary. The high costs of 'free parking', and the opportunity cost this presents (from public transport access to being able to walk somewhere for lunch) needs to be realised.

Clustering around transport nodes is desirable; from a public transport perspective it's easier to move people from many suburbs to one centre than to move from many to many. And with the daily commute the largest distance travel most people often make, it makes sense to aim to increase efficiencies here by worrying as much if not more about 'job densities' than 'housing densities'.

Inside a bus review workshop

Community workshops for the current round of metropolitan bus reviews, covering 9 Melbourne municipalities are drawing to a close, except for some outer areas.

Who goes to them and how are they run? How can hundreds of disparate opinions be reflected in a revised bus network that's convenient, simple and affordable?

Meetings typically involve the following in attendance:

* Members of the public – numbers vary but probably average about 20 – 40
* Representatives from community, welfare and special interest groups – at least 5
* Local government councillors and/or staff – at least 3 or 4
* State members of parliament – 1 or 2
* Representatives from the Bus Association of Victoria – 1 or 2
* Managers from local bus companies – 2 or 3
* Staff from the Department of Transport – 2 to 4
* Staff from the consultants running the workshop – 4 or 5 (either Parsons Brinckerhoff or Booz & Co)

Each review area comprises two or three local council areas. About 4 to 6 day and night meetings might be held for each review. Attendees are arranged on tables of five to eight with a facilitator to collate ideas and report views to the wider meeting.

Two rounds of workshops are run. The first round is to harvest ideas through three exercises.

The first exercise asks people “what's good about buses”. Participants are invited to write three points – one idea per page. These are put up on a board by the facilitator. Examples of answers might include bus cleanliness, coverage of shopping centres and friendly drivers.

The second exercise is similar but asks people “what's bad about buses”. Typical answers include limited operating hours, poor frequency and coverage gaps.

Both exercises are aimed at big issues affecting the whole bus network – specific matters are dealt with later. Each participant has ten 'votes' to allocate to each main issue on the board. Through this process the three top issues are discovered and the facilitator reports the table's findings to the whole meeting.

The third exercise is the longest and most detailed. Participants write their ideas for improving specific routes – again one per page. Typical ideas might include making a particular route more direct, more frequent or operate over longer hours. Other comments might include better connections with trains, new routes to fill a coverage gap and improved information.

These ideas, together with input from submissions and other meetings, are collated and used by the consultants to shape a draft network. Attendees are shown this when they are invited back to a second round of workshops.

The second round uses the draft network as a starting point for further evaluation and discussion. These are generally held several months after the first round of workshops in the area.

The consultants final report goes to the Department of Transport, which, after ascertaining the resources available and liaising with the Minister's office and bus operators, decide what parts will be implemented.

The review process has been occurring for a little under two years. Most areas are part way through their reviews with the final two areas (CBD and inner-north) to be done by 2010. In that time 'Phase 1' route changes have been made in some areas that were reviewed first. These 'Phase 1' changes are typically span improvements and minor extensions, with larger network changes planned in the later phases.

As with almost anything occurring over several years, there have been some refinements and changes of emphasis. Three things spring to mind.

* The first was an improvement in the voting for the first two exercises. Initially attendees where given 'ten dollars' to 'spend' in the form of sticky dots to be placed on a board next to their highest priorities. The problem with this was better to 'vote' last to swing the results in your favour (you wanted your issues to be in the top three) while not 'wasting' votes. Some reviews this year (particularly by Booz) used a secret ballot process so voting order could not dictate your 'vote'.

* The second difference was the changing role of the Department of Transport representatives relative to the consultants at the workshops. In 2008 Department staff often gave the opening address and acted as table facilitators, so there was high engagement with attendees. 2009's workshops saw a much lower profile, with presentation and facilitation roles being performed by the consultants instead. A nice gesture though is the Department giving attendees souvenir buses (not always available in 2008 workshops) as pictured above.

* The third variation appears to be in the terms of reference and the treatment of non-route matters, such as span and frequency. 'Service span' and 'service frequency' were two of the top three issues for improvement suggested at every workshop held. However participants at some 2008 second round workshops (eg Wyndham) were encouraged to comment only about the routes; not span, frequency or connections. Other sessions covered both, recognising the trade-off between the two given limited resources. This difference is reflected in reports after the round two workshops; the ones that discussed service levels suggested some service frequencies and the importance of harmonised headways for reliable transfers. It remains to be seen what the trend for 2009 will be.

While the current review process is our most effective yet mechanism of area-based bus service planning, some changes have occurred outside it. The main example is Manningham, where routes were restructured (eg the 280/282 'Manningham Mover' and other local routes changed) before the findings of that area's bus review were available. If the 'Manningham Mover' is found to be inconsistent with the review (which, if like others, will recommend more direct routes with longer operating hours), some participants may begin to ask whether the reviews are being accorded their due seriousness.

This post has discussed process more than any previous, and it is appreciated that this would bore some readers. At the parliamentary level, political toing and froing isn't everyone's cup of tea and at the administrative level the pace of change can sometimes test people's patience.

While it can't please everyone, the review process is an exercise in citizen engagement to design the sorts of services that meet taxpayer's needs. The draft networks seen so far fairly reflect community demands. It is hoped that the will so expressed prevails and we'll start seeing a revitalised bus network in more suburbs.

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2009 to all readers and contributors.

Public transport was never far from the news with three major themes dominating the headlines in 2008. Major themes for the year were trains, ticketing and transport plans.

A patronage boom tested the limits of a fragile train system with longer trains and revised timetables providing some relief in 2008. Other ideas to 'ease the crush' included free 'early bird' travel, a short-lived bicycle ban and plans to remove seats from carriages to increase standing room.

Ticketing items mainly dealt with the myki smartcard system, which first saw public use in Geelong. Marketing to promote 'bulk purchase' and 'weekend saver' travel continued, while more people got free Sunday travel through the broadened 'Sunday Pass'. Restrictions for seniors and periodical ticket holders were proposed but withdrawn before the effectivness date. Hence, unlike 2008's taxi driver protest, we were spared the sight of topless seniors in the streets.

Discussion about transport planning was largely in the context of Sir Rod Eddington's East-West Needs Assessment, which recommended road and rail tunnels linking east and west. The peak capacity of the rail network was a major point of contention with operators, academics, activists and gunzels debating the extent to which existing infrastructure can reliably accommodate the pathways needed for extra services. The Government responded with the Victorian Transport Plan. This multi-billion dollar long-term plan took up many Eddington recommendations but the major projects will require federal government funding.

To the above 'big three' should be added several topics of local or regional importance during 2008. In the inner suburbs rising traffic is reducing the efficiency and deliverable frequency of tram services year by year. Extended 'Clearways' have sought to provide relief, but not without opposition from local traders.

Further out, buses were the focus, with one major new SmartBus route introduced, continued 'minimum standards' upgrades to local routes and a boosted NightRider network with a doubled service frequency. Local bus service reviews continued with their consultations, meetings and submissions. The earlier reviews had their reports published and some of their less radical recommendations implemented during 2008. December 25, 2008 was the first Christmas ever where the number of local bus routes running exceded 150; a far cry from (maybe) 20 or 30 a few years ago.

Outside Melbourne regional buses received attention with revised timetables in some major centres. Less populous regions also got new or augmented community-style buses run by a local operator under DoT's 'Transport Connections' Program. These generally run a few times a week but provide access to the nearest major centre for country residents.

What's in line for 2009? (Advertisement)

With a three-car consist comprising one 'M' unit and two 'T' units, this flexible all-terrain vehicle is the future for passenger transport in 2009. Styled like the latest European trains it has straight polished metal sides. It also featurs round portholes to convey a luxury liner-style travel experience. Hence it should satisfy those who ask for cross-bay commuter ferries.

Just photographed at a secret depot in Western Victoria, an earlier model featured in a recent Connex advertisement. Enhancements now include fast army-style rear-door loading and quality-assured braking (see rego plate). No sticky overheads are required as the unit is self-powered. Also available in 3'6", 4'8 1/2" & 5'3" flanged wheel models, this vehicle is a must for the quality government or private operator.

I'll refrain from making any serious predictions for public transport in 2009 as it's much easier to be wrong than right. Besides there's no money in it in the slim chance the forecasts prove true. But if you wish to have a go at guessing what the year will bring, feel free to leave them in the comments below.

Premier to announce new transport plan this morning

Some URLs to check:

* Premier's website
* Department of Transport
* Ministerial releases

Outer suburban communities and rail electrification

There is little doubt that electrification to Sunbury, if it happened, would be a patronage success, just as the previous Werribee, Cranbourne, Sydenham, and Craigieburn electrifications have been.

While travel times and comfort might be somewhat inferior on the electrified service, their longer operating hours and tripled frequency have more than compensated. The increased patronage means that public transport is successfully meeting more people's travel needs. This is a good thing, especially if it takes trips away from its main competitor, the private car.

There are however certain local factors and personalities in Sunbury that have given rise to some opposition to an improvment that would be uncritically welcomed elsewhere (eg South Morang). This could come from a 'coalition' of the following:

1. Existing peak hour train commuters worried they would lose their comfortable inter-urban seats and have to stand on a crowded electrified suburban service. In contrast all the residents of South Morang would lose is a (slower) bus.

2. Local activists who see improved rail as being bad for their community. Objections raised include crime, vandalism, noise, litter and sprawl.

This is possibly less a debate about transport than the sort of place Sunbury should be. Unlike accretions to the suburban sprawl like South Morang or Rowville, Sunbury sees itself as a large country town seperate from Melbourne. Sunbury has many local community groups, affordable housing and locals recognise others in the main street.

Like 'green change' areas such as Eltham, it may be that local residents jealously protect their lifestyles from outsiders, sprawl and development to the point of paranoia verging on xenophobia.

Suburban standard rail service is seen as 'the thin edge of the wedge' and a step towards Sunbury losing its seperateness and becoming an anonymous suburb. Long time residents might express apprehension of 'ferals' moving in and the area becoming more like less favoured suburbs such as Dallas, Doveton or Melton.

Of course freeways can have similar effects to rail extensions in encouraging outer suburban development. So-called 'ferals' can drive (and steal) cars as much as riding trains, but this does not seem to be accepted as an argument against roads that bring Sunbury closer to Melbourne (eg the Calder and Tullamarine freeways). Such roads seem to be widely lauded in these parts with any opposition being on broader environmental rather local community or business 'protection' grounds. Instead local business people see the shorter travel time to Melbourne as an advantage rather than a disadvantage.

The flip side of neighbourliness in rural communities is protectionism, and this can lead to resistance against change, urbanisation or outsiders. A vocal local can be well-known by many and be perceived to carry a degree of influence. Or equally importantly, they may be regarded as representative of community wishes by outsiders.

One such local activist is Steve 'Jack' Medcraft, who is fiercely against rail electrification. A google search will reveal a most colourful character, whether it be in his council activities, activities as a real estate agent, convenor of 'People Against Lenient Sentencing', sporting activity and more. You can be sure his voice is heard in many places around the community.

Get 20 such people together and you can assure the outside world that locals don't want electrification; though more may support it they may be less vocal or not have any fear campaigns to run.

Why don't they just get along?

It has been my privilege to observe, know or work with people in various parts of transport. This has exposed me to competing (and often strong) views on the merits and limitations of other people or organisations.

I might be talking to Y and they might be proposing many things that Z supports. But when I ask Y's opinions about Z they might be quite dismissive. In return Z might be similarly contemptuous of Y, even though the people concerned haven't even met. But on the substantive issues (in my possibly naive opinion) I find more similarities than differences between the protagonists.

This leads me to the following conclusions:

* Transport policy, planning and debate is a play. All the key individuals act and say things largely determined by their set role (eg operator, bureaucrat, academic, activist, media etc).

* There is consensus amongst all the above actors that a larger role for public transport is in the public interest.

* There is a somewhat lesser agreement on the projects and policies are most needed to handle increased patronage. Nevertheless there is more commonality than some would have us imagine. For example, I believe that important things like (i) reforming the way the City Loop runs, (ii) tram priority, and (iii) buses headway harmonised with trains would command broad support - probably 80% or more. And even the bigger debates (Dandenong triplication and Eddington's rail tunnel) are more about means than ends.

Having established that there is more agreement than is generally acknowledged it now remains to explain the intensity of some of the squabbling.

I attribute this to the three Ps; Politics, Position and Personality (and background).

First politics. Public transport (like roads) is largely publicly funded. The proportion that isn't (ie fares) is publicy collected through the Metcard system. Franchisees look after the operations but policy, planning and new projects rests with the government. As public transport involved politics, we need to have an idea of how the system works.

There is always more demand for public services than taxpayer dollars to fund them. The democratic political system provides a mechanism for the people to elect members (mostly from a political party) to form a parliament. Some of these members (nomally from the largest party) get to be ministers with responsibility over a portfolio such as transport. Senior ministers are also a member of cabinet which sets the general direction for the government and approves major decisions.

The department oversees contracts with the operators, develops policy, plans for future needs and provides advice to the Minister. A minister can also refer matters to her department for its advice.

Policies and proposals can be developed by departmental staff, come to the department from outside or be requested by the minister. For example, an innovative manager could introduce a revised ticketing rule, or the government might reduce fares. Overcrowding might force action such as additional train purchases.

The exit of an operator might cause a revision to franchising arrangements. Matters may get in the media or be the subject of lobbying; these might force action (eg New Years Eve) or the Minister to ask for a review (bicycles on trains). Operators themselves might press for change, for instance the 2003 campaign by BAV to improve bus services (leading to the MOTC bus improvements from 2006).

The point is that democratic politics can be adversarial. There are always more demands than resources to satisfy them. if politicians are convinced there is broad support for public transport then they might put more resources into it. Lobbyists might seek to grab media headlines to demonstrate support for their cause. Then the government commits additional resources and instructs the department to implement.

A more co-operative style of advocacy relies less on megaphones and media. It is more technocratic than political. This is the one that seeks to forge relationships with bureucrats rather than speak to their masters through media sound-bites and public rallys. Graham Currie exemplifies the first approach; Paul Mees the second.

Position is to do with acting the roles in the big play mentioned above.

Key actors, with some quick notes, include: Operator professionals (Connex, YT, bus operators)

Work for one of the operators, often for many years. Experienced in operational matters. Respect own technical rigour and proud of what they do. Sometimes view media reports, activists and some academics with suspicion because they 'get it wrong'. Because of where they work, they might not always see 'bigger picture', the passengers' view or view transport system as a whole. Variations exist between the 'lower level', 'skilled technical' and 'managerial' strands.

Bureaucrats (eg DOT)

Good knowledge of political process, policy, contracts and regulations. Network knowledge varies greatly. Favour a co-operative method of working over 'megaphone lobbying' that speaks over the department's heads or worse. May be variations between the 'skilled technical' and 'managerial' strands.

Activists (eg PTUA)

Good overview of system as a whole (as seen by passengers). Value independence highly. Articulate and effective relationships with media. Perceived within the industry as being 'negative' with limited relations with middle levels in bureaucracy and operators of most modes. Distrust some bureaucrats and professionals as belonging to an 'entrenched culture of failure' from the PTC days.

Academics (attached to one of the universities)

See bigger transport picture well. Generally strong media profile and contributors to public debate. Not always good with technical details. Either 'collaborators' or 'crusaders' - depending on personality.

Enthusiasts/Gunzels

Either (i) already work in the industry, (ii) aspire to work in industry, (iii) don't work in industry or (iv) unemployable. Network knowledge is excellent, though can sometimes be single mode only. Mindset ranges from being able to see things from a passenger's perspective to 'the operator is always right'. Impatient when the media or activists get it wrong.

The above groups are not necessarily fixed; there are people who've belonged to two, three or more. Academics have become activists, gunzels have got industry jobs, and industry people have joined the Department.

However it is possible to find some differences that (mostly) hold up and might further explain why people with similar views in a similar field don't get along.

This is personality and background. Here I will make some quite sweeping generalisations that nevertheless might account for some of the irrational reasons for difference.

As a general rule, the operators are 'blue collar'. They contain large numbers of 'frontline staff' who man the stations, drive the trams and service the buses. These jobs do not need university degrees as all the specialist skills are taught in-house and on-the-job. Unionisation is high and incomes aren't bad. This is the Labor of Chifley and Calwell.

In contrast, bureaucrats are 'white collar'. Almost all have degrees. This is Whitlam or Keating Labor, though you might find some Greens in there as well. There will also be some Liberals, but 'tertiary educated', 'urban' and 'government employee' all point to a left-liberal majority.

That's the two groups of insiders. What about the two groups of outsiders?

Gunzels (who aspire to run the operators). There's exceptions, but I think most are blue-collar-ish.

Activists (who aspire to run the Department or tell it how it should be run). Well they've all got degrees, just like the bureaucrats.

See a pattern? It's almost like there's two strands, most clearly identified by formal education. I could go on about Zone 1 versus Zone 2, values intellectual vs practical, refugee rights vs border protection, art vs sport but won't for lack of evidence.

I can't help wondering if there's some sort of socio-cultural thing that pits each group against one another and makes them hate each other. Just look at many Railpage discussions if you want any doubt of how the gunzels view the activists. Higher up the tree (operators versus bureaucrats) similar differences may exist, but discussed with more decorum, always about substantive issues and generally not in public view (unless one counts subleties in media comments).

But it's not just differences that can cause conflict; commonality can lead to 'competition'; for instance between the degreed 'insiders' and 'outsiders'. Insiders might support a particular 'outsider' policy but be unable to get it through the department. Then it might make a big splash in the media, the government adopts it and the 'outsider' claims all the credit.

Similarly operator people can be (often rightly) dismissive of the more 'feral' gunzels. However the door should not be completely closed since some gunzels have made successful transport careers.

To sum up, those involved in transport, whether as operators, bureaucrats, activists, academics or enthusiasts have more in common than some arguments you hear indicate. Thus the differences must be due to other factors. I have attempted to describe some them, including the nature of the political process, the roles people have and the characteristics and backgrounds of the participants.