2006/08: Is the Victorian Government doing sufficient to promote public transport?<BR>

Click here to go back to the issue outlines list

2006/08: Is the Victorian Government doing sufficient to promote public transport?

Related issue outlines: no related issue outlines

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).

Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis

Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2005 file) and enter the following word (s).

Victorian
public
transport

Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald

Online newspaper items: see the end of this outline (after the list of newspaper sources) for a Google search facility, with tips on finding some of the newspaper items in the sources list still accessible online.

What they said ...
'You've got a system grinding to a halt, land use spiralling out of control, new roads that don't work because they fill so quickly, fuel prices, greenhouse gases and communities lost in the outer suburbs who are car dependent. All of these things are coming together'
Professor Peter Newman of Western Australia's Murdoch University

'Melbourne has proven that its public transport system is capable of effectively carrying large volumes of passengers on an almost weekly basis'
Professor Graham Currie, Australia's first Chair of Public Transport, Monash University

The issue at a glance
On November 8 2005 a major report, titled 'Most Liveable and Best Connected?' claimed that Melbourne's transport system compared poorly with the other top 14 cities in the annual liveability rankings.
In 2005, Victoria's capital slipped to second place in the rankings, published by The Economist magazine, losing its most liveable crown to the Canadian city of Vancouver.
The report argued that without drastic action, Melbourne's growing transport needs would cause the city to slip further. The study claims that the Victorian Government has spent a disporportionate amount on road infrastructure and has allowed Melbourne' public transport services to run down to a point where they cannot meet the usage targets the government has set.
The Victorian Government, on the other hand, has defended the nature of its expenditure and its development plans regarding both the State's road network and its public transport system.

Background
The Melbourne Transport Forum (MTF) is an advocacy group comprising members from Melbourne metropolitan local government, associate members representing transport companies, and participants from the State Government and environment groups. The MTF commissioned Professor Peter Newman and his team to undertake a study of Melbourne's transport needs, the extent to which they were currently being met and the extent to which the Victorian Government's transport plans were likely to prove adequate.
The 'Most Liveable and Best Connected?' study claims, 'The State Government's Metropolitan Transport Plan has a very narrow interpretation of the role transport policy plays in supporting economic growth. It only considers improving the movement of goods and business-related traffic through the City.
In contrast, the City of Melbourne's transport strategy recognises the importance of attractive, pedestrian-oriented centres to attract clusters of creative and knowledge industries. In a post-industrial city, most employment, innovation and economic growth is generated in these sectors...
International comparisons show that the more a city has committed itself to public transport infrastructure, the less the city spends overall on transport. Relatedly, the more a city is built around car dependence, the more of the city's wealth is wasted on just getting around!'
The report also argues, 'Over the last decade, Melbourne's urban road system grew significantly by high-profile additions to the network, particularly City Link and the Western Ring Road, at a pace that continues almost unabated. Further projects are under construction. During the same period, public transport operations were privatised, with some system modernization and network expansion, and very minor improvements to service frequency and connectivity. This has resulted in modest increases in patronage and operating efficiency.
Yet, such transport policies have failed to counter congestion for either private or public transport. They have failed to relieve Melbourne from the mounting social, environmental and economic costs of ever-increasing car use, and from the prospect of future economic vulnerability as transport fuels become ever more expensive, and their global availability declines.'

Internet information
The Victorian Government's Department of Infrastructure has an index on the Government's Internet site which allows the reader to access relevant ministerial statements and the full range of government policy statements re transport public and private. The policies are collectively titled 'Linking Melbourne: Metropolitan Transport Plan'.
This page can be found at http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/doi/internet/planningprojects.nsf/0/813BD23FC87CD17BCA256F4E0018096C?OpenDocument

The Melbourne Transport Forum (MTF) is an advocacy group comprising members from Melbourne metropolitan local government, associate members representing transport companies, and participants from the State Government and environment groups.
The MTF's home page can be found at http://www.mtf.org.au/

The study commissioned by the MTF, 'Most Liveable and Best Connected?' can be accessed at http://www.mtf.org.au/n/resources/presentations_from_mtf_report_launch_8th_november_.html

Public Transport Users Association (PTUA) was founded in 1976 as the Train Travellers Association. The PTUA is the recognised consumer organisation representing passengers of all forms of public transport. It has made numerous submissions to the government re the state of public transport and issues regular media releases.
It home page can be found at http://www.ptua.org.au/

The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) is one of a number of bodies representing the interests of Victorian motorists. An address from the RACV's current president presenting its position on a number of road-related issues can be found at https://racv.com.au/Coporate/RoyalAutoArticle.asp?d_id=2839

The Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) issues regular reports outlining the extent and sources of revenue re Australia's roads and the manner in which monies are spent on the nations road networks. It also indicates how much is spent by each state and territory and how much is spent by the federal government.
Their current report (for 2004) can be found at http://www.btre.gov.au/docs/infosheets/is23/is23.pdf

Arguments suggesting the Victorian Government has not done sufficient to promote public transport

1. The Victorian Government has devoted a disproportionate amount of state government funds to the building of freeways
It has been claimed that the Victorian Government is spending an inappropriately small amout on public transport at the same time as it is massively increasing its expenditure on roads.
A recent report on Melborne's infrastructure, produced by a team headed by transport academic Professor Peter Newman of Western Australia's Murdoch University, and titled, 'Most Liveable and Best Connected?' concluded that Melbourne has below average investment in public transport infrastructure and below average service levels (measured in kilometres of public transport per head of population). This was in comparison to fourteen other cities including Oslo, Vienna, Geneva, Vancouver, Montreal, Brisbane, Perth and Copenhagen.
However, the report also concluded that Melbourne was at the top of the list for the greatest length of roads per person. The report claims that throughout Melbourne's history, public and private funding for roads and freeways has dwarfed money spent on public transport. During the past decade, it says, projects such as CityLink and the Western Ring Road have been added to the city, as well as a host of smaller bypasses and road projects, while the Mitcham-Frankston Freeway and Deer Park Bypass will soon follow. During the same period, public transport has undergone only minor improvements in service quality and modest increases in patronage.
During three years in the mid-1990s, roads funding outstripped public transport funding by 3.6 to one. In the 2005-06 financial year, the total budget allocation for new public transport infrastructure was $47.6 million. The budget allocated to run the system (including the huge subsidies paid to Connex and Yarra Trams) is $1.54 billion. In comparison, $3.5 billion in private and government money has been spent on new roads with an additional $700 million from the state budget spent on road maintenance.
Summing up these trends, Professor Bill Russell, the Chairman of the Audit Review of Government Contracts, has claimed that the Bracks Government is 'the most freeway-friendly' in Victoria's history and that 'Melbourne has invested less in the expansion and improvement of its public transport network than other Australian and comparable overseas cities'.

2. The Victorian Government appears unlikely to meet future public transport targets
It has been claimed that Melbourne's public transport system is failing and that it will not be able to deal with the increased load targets that the State Government has set.
A recent report on Melborne's infrastructure, produced by a team headed by transport academic Professor Peter Newman of Western Australia's Murdoch University, and titled, 'Most Liveable and Best Connected?' made the following judgement, 'Trains, trams and buses are too slow and poorly connected. In many cases they are too infrequent to offer a service that comes even close to matching the car in speed and convenience, even where traffic congestion and parking problems are part of the equation.'
In response to this report, an Age editorial published on November 5 2005, claimed, 'Without a substantial and immediate investment in transport infrastructure, there is virtually no possibility of the State Government achieving the target it set in 2002 of having 20 per cent of all journeys in Melbourne taken on public transport by 2020, more than doubling the present figure.'
Professor Newman's report has calculated that for the 20 per cent target to be achieved, the Government needs almost to treble the number of people using public transport.
It has also been noted that the Government's Metropolitan Transport Plan (released last year) contains a long list of public transport projects but no costings and no commitment to implement them. However, 90 kilometres of new freeways or tollways are discussed, all with attached completion targets and funding commitments. It has been suggested that this lack of detail and lack of proposed completion dates suggests that the government is less committed to its public transport agenda than it is to its plans for road development.
Mr Andrew Rowe, the chief executive of the Victorian Local Governance Association has stated, 'We now need some strong evidence that the transport plan will be funded. If we don't get it, we will have to review our commitment to ongoing participation.'

3. The Victorian Government has not ensured that public transport facilities have kept pace with population growth
In an editorial published on January 4, 2006, The Age observed, 'Melbourne's population has almost trebled over the past 50 years and the city has spread well beyond its original borders, but our train and tram system has not expanded in turn.'
In the same editorial it was noted, 'New figures reveal there is little room for new passengers on our train network. Rail operator Connex is already in breach of its contractual obligations by exceeding the passenger load for peak-hour trains.'
A recent report on Melborne's infrastructure, produced by a team headed by transport academic Professor Peter Newman of Western Australia's Murdoch University, and titled, has claimed, 'Each public transport mode in Melbourne - trains, trams and buses - requires far-reaching innovations, in terms of operation and infrastructure, to offer premium standards of service such as those that help other cities perform ...'

4. Promoting the use of cars fosters pollution and the use of fossil fuels
The Victorian Government's Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has stated 'Motor vehicles (cars and trucks) are usually the worst sources of air pollution'.
The EPA has further claimed, 'Air pollution from thousands of small sources (including car and truck exhausts ... ) needs to be reduced. These are often referred to as diffuse sources of pollution - and controlling pollution from these sources is a real challenge for EPA.
Individually the amount of pollution from each might be small - but because there are so many of them, and under the right conditions (for example, no wind), all of these small sources of pollution can add up to a serious problem for Melbourne's air environment.'
Critics of the Victorian Government's current pattern of expenditure transport claim that reducing pollution demands that we adopt policies which reduce rather than increase our dependence on automobiles.
It has further been noted that a growing dependence on cars for transport represents a growing dependence on petrol. This, it has been suggested, is unsustainable. Environment Victoria has noted that the discovery of new reserves peaked in the 1960s and the world currently uses four times as much oil as is being found. It has suggested that the effects of this oil peak will be impact on food prices, tourism and unemployment. Some commentators have even speculated that the prospects for severe economic consequences are higher than anytime since the oil crisis of 1973.

5. Promoting the use of cars increases the likelihood of motorists' death, injury, incapacitation and obesity
It has been claimed that widespread use of cars comes at an enormous personal, social and economic cost. The Public Transport Users Association, Victoria, has claimed, 'The Australian road toll is now nearly 2,000 deaths a year. In addition, over 20,000 people each year are hospitalised as a result of road crashes ... It is likely that the number of people hospitalised each year by cars is even greater than the official figures suggest, as not all road incidents are reported as such ...
The Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics in 2000 estimated the direct cost of road trauma in 1996 as around $15 billion.'
Further, Dr Rob Moodie, the chief executive officer of VicHealth claimed in a 2003 report to the Planning Institute of Australia that 'Cars make us sick, sad and dead - how cars are managed is critical to public health - and much more important than we previously realised - we need to repopulate the streets. Car centred suburbs are "obesogenic" (fattening) and foster depression and isolation by discouraging social interaction, walking and cycling.'

Arguments suggesting the Victorian Government's transport policies and their implementation are appropriate
1. Road users contribute more in taxes and charges than governments subsequently spend on roads
It has been claimed that governments, both state and federal, are obligated to spend significantly on roads as road users pay major taxes and charges that contribute significantly to government revenues.
The Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics has indicated that the total amount of road-related expenditure by the Commonwealth, state, territory and local governments in 1996 to 97 was $6.2 billion. Revenue collected by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments from a selection of motor
vehicle taxes and charges over the same period was $13.9 billion. Considering more recent expenditure patterns, the same group indicated that the total amount of road-related expenditure by the Australian, State, Territory and Local Governments in 2001-02 was $7.6 billion. Between 1998-99 and 2001-02 road-related expenditure increased by an average of $99.4 million per year. However, revenue collected by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments from a selection of motor vehicle taxes and charges was $14.2 billion. These figures suggest that collectively state and federal governments spend on roads only slightly more than half the tax revenues that road users supply them with.
According to those who support current or increased levels of government expenditure on roads, the above figures indicate that road users actually contribute far more to government coffers than governments subsequently return to them in work on roads.

2. The Victorian Government is committed to developing public transport services
Melbourne has one of the world's most extensive tram networks, almost 300 bus routes and a train system with more than 15 lines. Unlike many major cities in the world, Melbourne has an integrated public transport system. With Metcard, users can buy one ticket and are able to use it on bus, train and tram, or all three of them.
In 2004, the Victorian Government launched the Linking Melbourne: Metropolitan Transport Plan an integrated plan for the management and development of Melbourne's transport system. The Plan covers personal travel - walking, cycling, trains, trams, buses, taxis, cars and motorcycles - as well as the movement of freight via roads, rail and ports, outlining strategies and actions for the next 4 - 5 years.
As a supplement to 'Linking Melbourne', in 2005 the Victorian Government published its transport policy statement titled 'Managing Congestion'. This policy statement included a number of commitments regarding public transport.
The government has undertaken to 'Roll out the tram priority program across ...[certain] routes ...These route priorities have been determined on the basis of heavy levels of patronage, slow travel speeds and low reliability. Other routes will be upgraded subsequently.'
The government has also indicated it will 'Link the tram operation control centre with VicRoad's traffic management system. This will ultimately allow late trams to
make up lost time through real-time changes to traffic' and that it will also 'Implement bus priority principles on cross-town bus routes in middle and outer areas via the SmartBus program routes that offer efficient public transport alternatives, to
encourage a shift in mode.'
Further, the government has indicated that 'Interchange facilities [will be upgraded] to meet the increasing demands of the multi-modal traveller. Building on the success of the Connecting Transport Services program of upgrading interchanges, existing facilities will be progressively reviewed for future upgrades over the next five years. This will involve facilities not only for linking route services, but also for car parking, drop-off and taxi facilities. Park & Ride facilities in particular have been effective in attracting public transport patronage, and opportunities to expand such facilities will be investigated, particularly in congested corridors.'
This range of plans and commitments has been seen as indicating the Victorian Government's support of public transport.

3. The Victorian Government is restricted by fiscal considerations
The Victorian Government is committed to surplus budgeting. This appears in part an attempt to avoid the accusations of fiscal irresponsibility which beset the Cain Government in its final years and the Kirner Government throughout its period in office. It also appears that the current government genuinely believes that surplus budgeting is the only means of ensuring continued consumer and business confidence and thus ongoing economic stability.
In a 2003 interview with Josephine Cafagna on Satewide, attempting to justify his government's use of tolls on some roadworks, the treasurer, John Brumby, stated, 'The reason you build in a surplus and a buffer in the good years is that so that when the tough years come along you don't have to increase taxes, dramatically, you don't have to slash spending to maintain a reasonable stability in Budget programs. And that's what we've done.'
This insistence on running surplus budgets has acted as a constraint limiting the Government's willingness to spend on major infrastructure projects.

4. The Victorian Government has overriding responsibilities with regard to road infrastructure
Australia has about 810 000 kilometres of public roads: about 326 000 kilometres are sealed and 484 000 kilometres are unsealed (unformed, formed or gravel). About 645 000 kilometres (80%) are local roads for which councils have responsibility. Under the 1991 Premiers' Conference Agreement, the Australian Government is responsible for funding national highways; State governments are responsible for funding arterial roads; and local governments are responsible for funding local roads.
In June 2005, a key industry lobby group, Engineers Australia, called for a dramatic increase in spending on Victoria's roads among other key areas of infrastructure. The report claimed that Victoria's performance on national and state roads was rated below that of New South Wales and Queensland.
The Victorian government has also recently issued a discussion paper pointing out the implications of a High Court decision that leaves road authorities open to claims for compensation from allegations of failure to maintain roads to an appropriate standard. Though this ruling will have significant implications for local authorities which are responsible for local roads, it also adds an additional imperative to the Victorian Government's obligation to maintain the roads for which it is responsible.
The Victorian Government has a road maintenance program it titles 'A Stitch in Time'. The Victorian Government ha stated, with regard to this program, 'Victoria's road network makes an important contribution to the social and economic well-being of Victorians. There is an expectation for agencies to maintain appropriate road pavement conditions at minimum cost by doing the right work at the right time using the most efficient methods. Victoria's Road Maintenance strategies summarised by A Stitch in Time. A Stitch in Time has been developed to ensure that each road maintenance dollar is spent most efficiently to give Victorians the road conditions they need and deserve.'

5. The Victorian Government does not receive proportionate financial support from the Federal Government with regard to roads
A major justification offered by all state and territory governments for the level of expenditure on both roads and other forms of transport and infrastructure is that the Federal Government does not contribute adequately to the maintenance of the national roads network. According to this line of argument, if the Federal Government contributed adequately to the upkeep and upgrading of the nation's highways, this would make more money available for the states to further develop other forms of transport, especially public transport.
The Federal Government receives almost 9 billion dollars annually in petrol excise. It spends some two billion dollars on road related expenses. Critics argue that road users and by extension the states are being exploited under this arrangement and that the Federal Government should could contribute much more than it currently does to the nation's road network.

Further implications
It would appear that the essential conclusion of 'Most Liveable and Best Connected?'are accurate. The Victorian Government is spending a far larger amount of its transport budget on the extension of the State's road networks than it is on developing public transport.
On one level this is a political imperative. A far higher percentage of the State's voters rely on cars than do on public transport. Traffic congestion, at least initially, has a wider electoral reach than unsatisfactory public transport. However, the increasing cost of petrol is making the Victorian Government's ostensible patronage targets for public transport likely to occur sooner rather than later. The cost of maintaining a car is becoming too great for many people to want to sustain. This has led to an increase in those seeking to make their way to and from work via public transport.
Barring a dramatic change in the way in which cars are fuelled, it is probable that the expence of running them and the contribution they make to air pollution is likely to make cars an increasingly less popular transport option in suburban Melbourne.
This does indeed pose a challenge for the current Victorian Government and those which will follow it. It may no longer be politically acceptable to set high sounding public transport targets, not attached to solid spending commitments. Nor are large window-dressing schemes, such as the upgrading of major railway stations, likely to meet the needs of a growing number of metropolitan public transport commuters.
One of the problems facing this and future governments is that at a time when greater demands are likely to be made on the State's transport facilities (both public and private) than ever before, governments are semi-privatising both systems in a way that limits their control. The electorate is unlikely to see such arrangements as limiting government responsibility.

Newspaper sources
The Age
September 15, page 3, news item by Dan Silkstone, `Inquiry to tackle road congestion'.
October 6, page 17, comment (with cartoon) by Kenneth Davidson, `A tangled transport web'.
October 6, page 8, news item by Dan Silkstone, `Car park levy "won't ease snarls"'.
October 5, page 3, news item (map) by Dan Silkstone, `Leaked memos criticise city bus plan'.
October 4, page 12, editorial, `More roads lead to more congestion'.
October 25, page 5, news item by Orietta Guerrera, `Car space levy will be user-friendly: Brumby'.
October 24, page 1, news item by Paul Austin, `Register car spot or get a big ticket'.
November 7, page 11, analysis by R Millar, `On the road to ... where?'.
November 10, page 15, comment by Kenneth Davidson, `Tunnel vision: a victory for the road lobby'.
December 31, 2005, page 1, news item by Dan Silkstone, `Congestion: new push on car tax'.
January 24, page 15, comment by Nicholas Low, `The mess that's our transport'.

The Australian
September 15, page 6, news item by Michael Bachelard, `Privatised transport system was deeply flawed: auditor'.
October 15, page 20, analysis (on PPP private consortiums and partnerships with state governments on tollways etc) by Glenda Korporaal, `Toll barons'.
October 15, page 20, comment by M West (on PPP), `Pay per trip and then a whole lot more'.

The Herald-Sun
September 26, page 19, comment by John Ferguson, `No parking levy any time'.
January 17, page 18, comment by Liam Houlihan, `Road rage at travel mess'.

NOTE: Listed items may still be available on the Web. To search for them, cut and paste any headline (just the headline, remember, not the whole indexed line) into the search-box below (or type the headline in exactly) then click the search button. The search opens in a NEW WINDOW.

To make your search more accurate, put " around the pasted headline, as in "This is the headline"