Melbourne public transport

With that particular bus service mentioned the timetable should be altered so that the bus arrives at the station say, ten minutes before the train, not three as now. Even if the bus was eight or nine minutes late there would still be enough time for people to get onto the platform to board the train, including hopefully Mr Hardie. Other services should be similarly altered, if need be. This would not cost much to implement, just the printing of new timetables and putting some at bus stops.

Improving suburban bus services requires more than just money, although that's important, obviously. It requires governments to insist on better standards of service from the bus operators, when negotiating contracts, in return for them receiving subsidies (taxpayers' money), but it seems that governments are reluctant to do this, whatever their political stripe. Why? Are the bus operators significant donors to the major political parties, or is it just bureaucratic inertia?

I hope that the extra $50 million for Victoria's bus services will result in better service standards (frequency, reliability, punctuality, hours of service, connectivity with other services etc.) but I'm not holding my breath.

Jean Luc said:

I suggested that bearing in mind that the trains only ran every 30 minutes, meaning a long wait for bus passengers if they missed their train. Introducing a little "fat" into the bus-to-train connection would make it not so critical. However, as you said, if trains (and buses) ran more often this would be a moot point.

Click to expand...

It's also important in situations where services are so grossly infrequent (worse than 20') that the connecting buses run at the same frequency as the trains. While that sounds obvious, it doesn't actually happen in Melbourne.

Agreed. Is there sufficient capacity on Melbourne's rail system, in particular the City Loop, to allow more trains?

Click to expand...

City Loop is irrelevant.

In the late 60s when the loop was being planned, the justification for building it was an expected massive increase in patronage. During the decade or so it took to build the loop, patronage dropped off by a third, and it's never recovered. As the loop was meant to massively increase capacity and only really needs four platforms at Flinders and Spencer Street, that leaves plenty of platforms for terminating services. Granted that means a wholesale restructure of timetabling, and probably clearing out most of the dead wood at the DoI and Connex, but it's quite possible.

If it is a rent seeking operation, then that suggests to me that the government has scope to negotiate a better deal for both passengers and Victorian taxpayers.

Click to expand...

Correct. That assumes a competent government, something we don't have.

If Melbourne's bus services were to be improved to something like Smartbus standards, then funding would have to increase, but a better deal i.e. better value-for-money, should still be sought.

Click to expand...

Smartbus doesn't go far enough IMHO, and the technology (the smart part) is far less important than running services (the bus part). Why not just call them buses and be done with it?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...the-wrong-track/2006/04/08/1143916767726.html

From The Sunday Age

Privatised trains, trams on the wrong track

By William Birnbauer
April 9, 2006

THE promises ran faster than an out-of-control express train. Premier Jeff Kennett was full of steam in 1999 and the public transport sell-off was the most exciting game in town.

Privatising the system would reduce the subsidy, provide better services and new trains, improve railway stations, and even eliminate the need for a transport minister, Mr Kennett said. It was a "win, win, win" for Victoria.

He predicted the changes would be the envy of the world. They were noticed, but not the way he predicted.

"No other first-world city has followed Melbourne's lead," an expert report obtained by The Sunday Age says. "We have become the … example of why privatised urban public transport does not work."

Mr Kennett recently expressed dismay at the outcome: "We now pay billions in subsidies to the private operators, which was not the idea of privatisation," he said.

Victoria's four leading transport analysts and critics compiled the report. Dr Paul Mees is a senior lecturer in transport planning at Melbourne University and is a past president of the Public Transport Users Association. Michael Buxton is an associate professor at RMIT University and is seen as the father of Labor's "green wedge" legislation.

John Stone is a public transport politics researcher from Swinburne University. Dr Patrick Moriarty is an engineering lecturer and transport researcher from Monash University.

The report says that if the Connex and Yarra Trams' franchises were extended to 2010, taxpayers would pay $2.1 billion more in subsidies than if public transport were still publicly owned. This compares with projections in 1999 that taxpayers would save $550 million.

The Liberal government in 1999 split Melbourne's trains and trams into five franchises. Three private operators won the bids and signed 12- to 15-year contracts. But in early 2002, the Bracks Government announced a $105 million bail-out for the operators. It was not enough for National Express Group and it pulled out of the system later that year, leaving only Connex and Yarra Trams.

The analysis shows that Government rescue packages in 2002 and 2004 increased subsidies to operators while reducing service obligations.
Passengers were also hit with higher-than-inflation rises in ticket prices in 2003. The report says this will amount to about $100 million of extra revenue by 2010.

"When announcing the refranchising in 2004, the transport minister (Peter Batchelor) claimed that the private operators had improved the service quality and increased patronage faster than under public ownership. Neither of these claims was correct at the time, and since 2004, reliability has deteriorated, particularly on trains," the report says.

Mr Kennett told The Sunday Age privatisation had turned out "different from what we intended. When the operators got into trouble after Labor's election in 1999, they ran to the Government and got a bigger subsidy. I probably would have said, 'Well if you can't manage it, you lose the franchise and we will look at either retendering it out or we might look at any other option'."

He said private operators had initially made the system more punctual and added rolling stock, much of it locally made. "The question is whether that is a good outcome or not so good outcome. The (Bracks) Government has handled it differently than we would have," Mr Kennett said.

The analysts say private operators bought about $500 million in rolling stock, some of which would have been bought under state ownership.

But they say $2.2 billion is a lot to pay for such an investment and the trains and trams "which were ordered in haste to meet contract deadlines have serious design flaws".

Trams had poor suspensions and fewer seats, and some train carriages had only two doors, slowing boarding and alighting. Others were subject to speed restrictions because of braking problems.

Bus operators received a subsidy equivalent to $4.09 for each passenger, the report says. In Vancouver, Canada, the subsidy was equivalent to $2.20. "These results confirm the findings for train and tram services: privatisation is not serving the public interest," the report says.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/12bn-sting-in-the-rail/2006/04/08/1143916767672.html

From The Sunday Age

$1.2bn sting in the rail

By William Birnbauer
April 9, 2006

PRIVATISATION of Melbourne's public transport has cost taxpayers $1.2 billion more than if the system had remained in public hands, according to a analysis by transport experts.

And if Connex and Yarra Trams are given franchise extensions, taxpayers will pay $2.1 billion more by 2010 than if the system were publicly owned.

The experts urge the State Government to take over the system and set up an independent public agency.

"It would be a tragedy if the Government simply extended the franchises and passed up the opportunity to put public interest back into public transport," they say.

Former premier Jeff Kennett, who privatised the system in 1999, said the Government should examine all options, including public ownership.

The franchises were signed in April 2004 and expire on November 30, 2008, with an option to extend to May 2010. The Government has to tell Connex and Yarra Trams by November next year if it intends to extend the agreements.

Mr Kennett said the Government should examine free public transport as part of the review.

Senior lecturer in transport planning at Melbourne University, Dr Paul Mees, RMIT University's Associate Professor Michael Buxton, John Stone from Swinburne University, and Dr Patrick Moriarty from Monash University, prepared the analysis. It will be released tomorrow.

"The experiment has failed spectacularly … subsidies have increased, services have not improved, inappropriate rolling stock has been purchased … the regulator has been 'captured' by those he is supposed to be regulating, there is no real planning for the future," they say.

The analysis says the system could revert to public ownership at 3am on November 30, 2008, without compensation to the operators. But the rolling stock would have to be bought.

The cost would be "relatively modest" because the trams and trains could not operate elsewhere. Dr Mees says this could be done for about $100 million.

The critics say current subsidies and fare revenue, totalling $1.2 billion a year, were "more than sufficient" to upgrade the system to world's best standards, despite what Connex and Yarra Trams claim.

They say any extra spending in the Government's transport and liveability statement, due next month, could be wasted.

"The main problem is that Melbourne is receiving poor value for the very substantial sums currently expended on the privatised system. The correct response is not to give the private operators even more money, but to fix the inefficiencies," the critics say.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/edito...to-public-hands/2006/04/08/1143916763290.html

From The Sunday Age

Public transport should be returned to public hands

April 9, 2006

Privatisation has been a disastrous failure, but the Premier can do something to put transport back on track.

THE Labor Party was outraged as Jeff Kennett prepared to privatise the state's public transport system in 1999. Its transport spokesman, Peter Batchelor, predicted the radical step would lead to higher ticket prices and fewer services. It did not make sense, he said, that Victorians would pay millions of dollars in subsidies for the transport system but no longer own it. Steve Bracks, as shadow treasurer, called on Mr Kennett to abandon the "crazy privatisation".

Well chaps, that is precisely what you will be able to do soon. The current franchises expire at 3am on November 30, 2008. But the State Government must tell Connex and Yarra Trams by November 30 next year if it intends to extend the contracts.

We agree with the findings of the four transport academics featured in our news pages today that the privatisation has been a disastrous failure and that public transport should return to state ownership.

The key finding that, by the end of this financial year, the privatised system will have cost taxpayers $1.2 billion more to operate than under public ownership is reason enough for the state to act. The amount would blow out to $2.1 billion should the contracts be extended to 2010.

Surely any extra expenditure should go into improving the system, including making it free, rather than into the pockets of Connex, which is a division of a French-based corporation, and Yarra Trams, a joint venture partnership between Transfield Services and European transport operator Transdev.

Even the man who sold off the state's trams and trains, the greatest advocate of privatisation, Mr Kennett, now concedes that his dream has not worked. "We now pay billions in subsidies to the private operators, which was not the idea of privatisation," he recently told this newspaper, adding that the Government should look at all options, including public ownership, when reviewing the franchises.

The operators had wildly unrealistic expectations of both increased patronage and revenue when bidding for the contracts. One privatisation expert found the companies had forecast an average growth in rail and tram passengers of 70 per cent. In the first few years, real growth was between 2 and 4 per cent.

As a result, the Labor Government, which inherited the privatised system in 1999, has twice bailed out Connex and Yarra Trams with increased subsidies and lower service obligations, and has approved above-inflation rises in ticket prices.

In return, passengers have seen some new carriages and trams — which probably also would have occurred under public ownership — but little improvement in services or reliability, continuing cancellations and a system that simply doesn't connect.

The Sunday Age maintains that public transport should be free in order to increase patronage, take the pressure off Melbourne's increasingly gridlocked streets, cut the number of road accidents and reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It would be much easier to achieve this under a publicly owned system.

The time has come for Mr Bracks and Mr Batchelor to acknowledge that the predictions they made while in opposition were correct and to act in the interests of all Victorians.

Try rail, says Liberal
Liam Houlihan
Herald Sun
14 July 2006

MELBOURNE'S public transport woes could be fixed by large cash investments from the Federal Government, according to leading Liberal Malcolm Turnbull.

The parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister said rising oil prices and traffic jams had brought Australia to a "tipping point".

"Why are we funding local roads in Melbourne but not local railways?" Mr Turnbull said.

"It is starting to dawn on the community and on government that there has to be a serious investment in mass transit in our major cities."

Victoria spends millions every year running trains, trams and buses.

But with growing peak-hour train crushes and public transport black holes in outer suburbs, critics want more spent on improving public rail transport.

Australia was the only developed nation where public transport received no federal funding, Mr Turnbull said.

"We need to address the challenge of urban transport. We need to reinvest in mass transit and in particular rail," he said.

Cheaper off-peak travel the ticket
By William Birnbauer
The Age
16 July 2006

THE State Government is considering cheaper off-peak public transport fares to increase patronage.

An internal Government briefing paper confirms an analysis by The Sunday Age earlier this year that free public transport would boost patronage by up to 30 per cent.

But it rejects this solution, saying improving services would result in even higher passenger numbers.

The Department of Infrastructure paper dismisses free travel or low-cost fares in peak times, but says lower fares during off-peak periods should be considered.

It notes that the State Government is committed to examining opportunities for off-peak price reductions.

"Off-peak pricing will continue to be considered by the Victorian Government," it says.

"During periods of low demand, when surplus capacity is available, there are significant opportunities available to increase public transport patronage at low cost. This can either take the form of 'low-cost' or 'free' public transport."

The briefing paper says low-cost initiatives had the potential to maintain most of the revenue base while removing price as a factor in people's consideration of using public transport.

The paper was obtained under freedom-of-information laws and follows a Sunday Age campaign earlier this year advocating free public transport.

The campaign received overwhelming support from readers and led to the Government announcing free travel for pensioners on Sundays, beginning next month.

Premier Steve Bracks opposed scrapping fares, saying the system needed revenue to expand and improve services.

The Infrastructure Department's fare policy manager, Adrian Webb, wrote the report in response to The Sunday Age's campaign. It was distributed in the department's public transport division.

It concludes that the public transport network would find it difficult to cope with significant additional passengers in peak times without a big increase in spending.

It says that if funds were available for public transport, they should be spent on additional services rather than on reducing peak fares.

"There is no significant surplus capacity available on peak-hour train and tram services in Melbourne," it says. "Any increase in demand will require additional vehicles and significant infrastructure and service upgrades."

The analysis says a distinction should be made between peak and off-peak services when considering reducing or eliminating fares.

"During off-peak times, there is surplus capacity available on the network," it says. "Off-peak times are significantly more price-sensitive than peak times and are more likely to respond to cheaper fares. Reducing fares during off-peak times to increase demand is worthy of consideration. The Victorian Government is committed to analysing opportunities for off-peak price reductions."

The paper cites the example of the Sunday Saver ticket, which provides unlimited travel in zones one, two and three for $2.50. The ticket was introduced in April last year and has increased passenger numbers by 25 per cent.

A spokeswoman for Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said the Government was spending $2 billion to boost capacity on the rail network.

The department's paper also said revenue accelerated last year, jumping 10.6 per cent in the final quarter.

Public transport revenue was approaching $500 million a year, with the fast-rail system tipped to boost V/Line revenue. And the Smartcard ticketing system, expected next year, would have lower operational costs than the current system, it said.

Victoria puts hopes, and cash, into renewables
By Jason Dowling
The Age
16 July 2006

VICTORIANS could soon enjoy a glass of chardonnay while coasting through the Yarra Valley on a solar-powered ultra-light rail service under consideration by the State Government.

The service would operate between the end of the metropolitan rail line at Lilydale and Healesville, taking in some of the Yarra Valley's best scenery and wineries.

Stops could include Coldstream, Yering and Yarra Glen. Buses could then take passengers on a wine-tasting tour.

Victorian Environment Minister John Thwaites has announced a $30,000 feasibility study into the light-rail service.

This comes as the State Government has pledged millions of dollars to make it easier to harness the power of the sun, wind and ocean.

Shire of Yarra Ranges chief executive Rob Hauser said the train would be fantastic for the region.

"We would love to see a tourist train run through one of the best wine regions in the world," he said.

Margaret Baker, from the Yarra Valley Visitor Information Centre, said: "The potential for tourism would be enormous."

But Opposition transport spokesman Terry Mulder said he had little confidence the light-rail service would eventuate.

"I would not get excited about any feasibility study the Government did into extending rail lines … I think it is just an election stunt," he said.

The State Government will today announce $13.3 million in funding to support the development of renewable energy technologies, including $1 million to boost an existing wave-power project in Portland. The bulk of the money — $10 million — will be used to form the Renewable Energy Technology Research and Development Fund.

"This will support research into renewable energy and also commercialising the research," Mr Thwaites said.

"The types of things could be wave power, tidal power, solar power, wind or biomass, and this will provide an incentive for cutting-edge research and technology in renewables.

"We already have good information about wind power … but there are other forms of renewable energy that need further research to be practicable and to become commercialised."

The funding is part of the Victorian Government's Environmental Sustainability Action Statement, to be released by the end of the month.

Mark Wakeham, an energy campaigner with Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said renewable energy was only delivering about 3 per cent of Victoria's electricity and any government program that helped "break our addiction to burning coal is a good thing".

"But obviously it is important to be deploying existing renewable energy technologies as well as funding research for future projects," Mr Wakeham said.

Opposition energy and resources spokesman Philip Davis said governments had a role in developing renewable energy.

"But governments should not be in the business of preferment — that is, of picking winners — because it is the investment by the private sector, based on assessment of commercial applications, which will eventually bring these technologies to market," Mr Davis said.

The additional money for renewable energy comes as wind-farm opponents criticised a State Government-commissioned report on the power source.

The report, released last week, found greenhouse gas emissions decreased between 250,000 and 310,000 tonnes a year for every 100 megawatts of electricity produced by wind farms.

Wind-farm critic Andrew Chapman said the report was based on "typical figures" rather than actual figures.