Swiss referendums in 2009 make for healthy democracy and some action on climate change

In Switzerland, they are holding referendums right now. These have been mostly initiated by citizens.

Two are federal, 6 are canton level, and in Geneva there are two commune ones, bringing the total to ten.

One Canton referendum caught my attention. The proposal is to offer rebates to people who buy new cars with better than 120 g CO2/km, no effect on those in the range 120 to 250, and an extra levy to those that produce greater than 250.

How refreshing it would be to vote for a referendum such as this - that has potential to provide real incentives for people to reduce their carbon emissions.

Currently in Australia, such a referendum is impossible. For healthy democracy I think we need the ability to hold referendums like this now.

So we need a referendum to change the Australian Constitution to make citizen-initiated referendums possible.

Some photos of billboards for the referendums

EV in London

Living through the COVID-19 pandemic and opportunities for a new and better future

Living through the COVID-19 pandemic 

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruption for life as we know it.  In no particular order:

Economies have slowed drastically due to restrictions on many businesses operating.

Many people have lost their jobs and are now unemployed.  Unemployment is reaching levels not seen since the 1930 depression.

Many shops cannot pay rents as they have no income while they are shut down.

Many housing tenants cannot pay rent as they have no income.

Governments have provided stimulatory spending including providing wage replacements to those who have been stood down by companies due to lack of work.  Some groups of people are not getting payments, including international students and casual workers who have been employed with a company for less than a year.

Social distancing to reduce the spread of infection has halted many social conventions including hugs, kisses and handshakes.

Social distancing has also been introduced in supermarkets and retail shops that remain open.

Panic buying has seen supplies of toilet paper and many food supplies depleted.

Many school and all university students are being schooled from home via the Internet.

People are walking and cycling in local parks either alone, with another person or with a family group from the same household.

People are heeding government advice to stay at home and avoid unnecessary travel.  The roads are very quiet.

Police are fining some people who break social distancing and other regulations imposed under a state of emergency.

Many people are working from home via the Internet.

The arts and music industries have ground to a halt with all public performances and exhibitions closed.

Sports are stopped and many sporting clubs and organisations are suffering cash flow problems. Some say they won't survive.

The stock market has suffered major losses with share prices falling [link]

Countries have closed their borders to most travel.

People on cruise ships have become marooned when no country will allow them to berth due to concerns about infection risk.

Air pollution has dropped along with automobile and industry emissions.

Families are spending time together with parents and children all at home during lockdowns.

People are cooking more - meals, bread, pastries, cakes etc.

Hand washing has become routine, along with disinfectant hand cleaner in some shops.

A National Cabinet has been formed to expedite decision making and align federal and state policies and actions for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Union leaders are talking to federal government ministers to develop appropriate support measures for companies and employees.

Companies with large debts and/or "just in time" manufacturing/retail models have been hit hard by the lockdowns imposed by governments.  Many, such as Virgin Australia, are in big trouble.  Some will fail.

Opportunities for a new and better future

Individuals, societies and governments can change how things are done when they want or need to.

We can pay a universal basic income to people who are unemployed.

Governments can build infrastructure that generates employment and benefits people including:

• High quality bike paths, free from traffic
• High speed rail links between cities
• More public transport to give people the option for convenient and sustainable travel

Provide a universal public health system that delivers health services for all citizens and provides economies of scale.

Provide more government funding for research and development into various sectors including:

• Public health and disease prevention
• Renewable energy and energy storage solutions
• Rebuilding centralised electricity grids to support micro-grids, distributed storage and distribution of renewable energy

Impose a travel tax on all car and truck travel.

• Car users and trucks don't directly pay for roads so many people feel they are free to use.  However, increased road usage creates more demands for roads, creating a vicious cycle.

Support work from home as an ongoing arrangement

• Less travel would free up a lot of time for many people
• People could work from home, possibly on a roster system, for 1 to 5 days per week

Price air travel appropriately.

• Excessive air travel is a luxury the planet cannot afford.  It should be priced to cover greenhouse gas emissions, leading to reductions in non-essential trips.
• Local holidays are a more sustainable option

Protect forests and plant trees

• Forest provide natural resources and are "services" such as producing water and drawing down CO2.  They also provide habitat for animals and plants and support biodiversity
• Cease logging of native forests  
• Plant trees on degraded farm land and public land to generate employment and increase the world's forest cover.

Transition to renewable energy

• Develop are roadmap to transition to 100% renewable energy by 2030 and transition off fossil fuels including oil, gas and coal.
• Generate employment in manufacturing and services for renewable energy

Make all elected MPs part of government

• Reform politics and government so that all elected MPs have a role to play
• Ditch political parties and "the opposition"

Feel free to add any suggestions in the comments.

Underground rail with a linear park is better that overhead Skyrail

The Victorian government has announced plans for "Skyrail" overhead rail along sections of the Dandenong line.  Daniel Bowen provides a good overview of the proposal.

Murrembeena Station concept drawing Source

Community consultation by the Victorian government regarding this proposal seems to be "we are providing elevated rail and we want feedback on the details".

An underground rail option is not being publicly canvassed by the government.  Underground rail would probably cost twice as much as the overhead rail so it has apparently already been ruled out.

While underground rail would cost more it would have much less long term impact. A linear park can be built above it with bike and pedestrian paths and a mix of some residential and commercial buildings. 

Cities around the world such as London, Paris, Stuttgart, Naples and Tokyo all have underground rail. 

If you want to see how overhead rail ends being a disruptive divisive eyesore visit the Canterbury Railway station or have a look at the wasteland under Flinders Street viaduct in Melbourne's CBD.

Flinders St viaduct source: Wikimedia

The "Skyrail" proposal includes:

"an extra 12 km of cycle paths will be added, linking existing sections to make a single stretch for bikes from Caulfield to Dandenong, with local councils contributing additional links to Monash University and the Gardiner Creek trial, which provides an off-road path all the way into the city."

Bike path near overhead infrastructure

However, bike paths on the surface need to cross roads like the current train line does. This is a poor outcome for cyclists, less so for pedestrians. 

Here are some pros and cons of underground versus overhead rail for grade separation.

	Pros	Cons
Overhead rail	Achieves grade separation between roads and rail Cheaper to build Bike and pedestrian paths can be built under gantry that can provide overhead cover	Creates an eyesore Divides communities Propagates noise further Space under the gantry has low sunlight and low amenity - three or four tracks cover a lot of area No opportunity for residential buildings along rail easement Bike path road crossings impede cycling
Underground rail	Achieves grade separation between roads and rail Provide linear park above with mix of residential and commercial buildings and bike and pedestrian paths Less noisy, low impact on  local communities Can include bike and pedestrian underpasses in tunnels (next to rail tunnel) under busy roads.	Expensive to build Separate overhead cover required for bike and pedestrian paths Diesel fumes from regional and freight trains need to be dispersed

The Level Crossing Authority should provide the best transport outcomes for motorists, public transport, cyclists and pedestrians with all grade separation projects.

So far the track record for grade separations is appalling.  For example, feedback to provide good pedestrian and bike underpasses at Springvale and Rooks Roads was ignored even though the Box Hill to Ringwood Rail Trail was an approved project when they were planned and built.

More recently, the need for a tunnel under Burke Rd for pedestrians and cyclists during the grade separation was also ignored with the usual litany of excuses such as "there isn't room for it" and "it would cost too much".

I provided feedback that a bike and pedestrian underpass should be included during consultation for the Middleborough Road grade separation.  A pedestrian underpass was belatedly provided but bikes cannot use it.

The plans for Blackburn Road grade separation show now indication of a bike pedestrian underpass

Blackburn Road separation concept [source]

Pedestrians and cyclists are forced to use pedestrian crossings at all these locations - they must press and wait for pedestrian crossing lights that then impede the traffic - that the grade separation is supposed to have prevented!  This is an absurd outcome for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists.

Tunnels should be also be provided for pedestrians and bikes next to train tunnels - its is much cheaper to do this during construction.

Linear parks over underground rail with covered solar bike paths and a mix of residential and commercial buildings provide the best amenity for all users and the lowest impact on local communities.

Linear bike path in Hungary

Linear bike path concept in Sydney

Links

• Skyrail! – Daniel Bowen dot com
• Sky rail more an eye opener than an eyesore, The Age
• Berlin Radbahn - A Paradise for Cyclists - AllesGerman
• $1.6 billion elevated rail project to replace level crossings on Dandenong line, The Age 
• Proposed designs unveiled for Caulfield to Dandenong corridor, Level Crossing Removal Project 

Why roads are not suitable for mass transportation

The now departed Napthine government was hell-bent on spending up to $16b on the "East West link" tollway tunnel project, claiming that it would "be the transport infrastructure that Melbourne needs".  They included fanciful claims including that the new tunnel would:

• Reduce commute times by 20 minutes
• Reduce congestion on Hoddle Street

Both claims are patently false.  The Napthine government lost he election held on 29 November and the incoming Premier, Daniel Andrews, has pledged to stop the East West Link road project  proceeding.

Similar claims were made by Jeff Kennet back in the 90s when he claimed the City Link road project, constructed between 1996 and 2000 would "will solve Melbourne's traffic problems". Clearly, it has not.

However, there is another good reason why roads cannot provide a suitable mass transport system for a city such as Melbourne - every driver is a single point of failure.

Nearly every day there is a crash which can close or seriously disrupt traffic on a route.

Six cars and a truck were involved in two crashes on the West Gate Bridge. Photo: Seven News

For example,a crash closed the West Gate Bridge on Tuesday 2 December. Such crashes and closures are now a daily occurrence.

By comparison, trains carry up to 800 passengers with a single driver - and don't have to contend with road intersections and "lane changes".

We need some real political leadership to build more train lines and revise the train network for Melbourne - given that no new suburban rail lines have been built since the Glen Waverley line in 1932.

A dedicated safe bicycle path network should be included too.

Links

• Crash closes West Gate Bridge lanes, The Age  
• West Gate Freeway crash causes delays, The Age 22/11/14
• CityLink, Wikipedia
• East West Link, Melbourne, Wikipedia

Labor finally opposes disastrous East West Tollway Tunnel

Finally, after months of obfuscation and weasel words, the Labor party has stated that they won't honour any contracts signed for the ill-considered East West Link (road tollway tunnel) that the Napthine Liberal National Government is hell bent on building.

Up until now, Labor has said "they oppose the tunnel but they will honour contracts signed by the Napthine government" - which means they effectively supported the tunnel as it would proceed if they win the election.

This was always nonsense as the Victorian Government is NOT exposed to any sovereign risk if bidders for the project know that the next government might not proceed with the project.

Now, at last, Daniel Andrews has made this statement - that if elected, a Labor government will not proceed with the project.

There are very good reasons they should do this, as I presented to the Assessment Panel, including:

• The project cost/benefit has not been fully disclosed, and what is known has been proven to be false.  The project will not generate a net return to the community, it will be a net cost.
• The tunnel will not reduce congestion as it will encourage more traffic and the destination of only 95% of people travelling on the Eastern Freeway system is the CBD, north or south, not across to the Tullamarine.

The $8b would be much better invested in upgrading Melbourne's train network, including building new train lines and bike paths such as the North East Bicycle Corridor.  You can also sign this petition to build the NEBC.

Links

• Labor to dump East-West Link if elected, even if contracts are signed, The Age
• Government attacks Labor leader Daniel Andrews' pledge to dump East West Link, The Age 
• East West Link contract invalid if councils win court case, The Age 
• Labor stakes all on dislike of East West Link project, The Age 
• Brunswick resident Anthony Murphy may appeal court decision in favour of East West Link, The Age 

Transport planning in Melbourne is a farce

Here is a good article detailing the problems we have with politicians making ridiculous decisions about transport infrastructure: Infrastructure needs science, so who put the politicians in charge?

Australians are addicted to the political theatre surrounding infrastructure investment. Tracey Nearmy/AAP

Politics is really making a mess of Melbourne's transport.

The vast majority of transport funding has been spent on building more roads, when simple maths shows that cars cannot provide a working mass transit system - as demonstrated by Los Angeles and mimicked by Melbourne.

Can anyone remember when there was actually a review of Melbourne's entire transport infrastructure and services? I don't think there has been one without a political agenda/bias in my lifetime.

Jeff Kennett told us the CityLink would be the solution to Melbourne's transport problems for the future. Clearly it isn't. He also legislated penalties to the State if a future airport rail link were to be built.

Labor started the latest debacle with their "East West Needs Assessment". What about north south? What about commute trips from outer areas to CBD? What about radial trips (with only buses for public transport)?

The outcome was "build the East West tunnel". See recommendation 4: http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Eddington_report_recommendations

Then the Labor/Green marginal seats in inner Melbourne put enough pressure on Labor to abandon the tunnel.

Then millions was allocated to planning the "Metro Rail Tunnel" to "free up capacity in the train network", meanwhile Rowville, Doncaster and Airport rail lines continued their 30+ years on hold.

Then Baillieu got elected, promising to review the Doncaster and Airport rail lines

Then Baillieu decided to ditch the Metro Rail Tunnel and put all funds towards the East West Tunnel Tollway - to service 5% of the cars the come in along the Eastern freeway. Abbott dissed the rail project and said he would provide 1.5b for the Tollway tunnel. The Doncaster and Airport rail reports were deemed to expensive and the projects duly put back on ice.

Then Napthine took over and nothing much changed. More chest beating about "strong leadership to solve Melbourne's transport problems with the Tollway Tunnel. And the big lie about that it will reduce congestion on Hoddle Street and Punt Road.

Then Napthine felt some pressure over lack of rail and public transport improvements.

Then Napthine decided to re-route the Metro Rail Tunnel (after it was approved by Infrastructure Australia and millions spent on planning) via the failing Docklands housing development to the recently approved Fishermens Bend housing development that had no public transport planned for it. No more link to the under serviced hospital and university precincts. No reduction of load on Flinders Street or St Kilda Road.

Now Labor says they will honour the Napthine government's contracts that they will sign prior to the next election. Despite 75% of Melbournians not supporting it, and them having no political mandate for this.

All the while, no serious funding for safe separated cycling routes to facilitate mode shift to cycling as a healthy sustainable transport option.

Transport planning in Victoria doesn't really happen.

Its just an ongoing clusterfuck to build more roads.

Lies and deception: The East West Tunnel won't reduce congestion

When Denis Napthine took over from Ted Baillieu as Premier of Victoria in March 2013 he took charge of government that many thought had lost its way.

Napthine set about creating a new "firm leadership" persona to distance himself from his predecessor.  Undoubtedly he was also influenced by Liberal Party strategists working on the campaign for the Liberal-National coalition government to be re-elected in 2014.

Unfortunately, after policy announcements during the 2012 Victorian election campaign about providing better public transport, including studies for Doncaster and Melbourne Airport railway lines, Denis Napthine recommitted the government to building the "East West Link" in two stages.

Source: Prof Graham Currie (PDF)

Stage 1 (committed)

• Part 1: a 4 to 6 km road tunnel to connect the Eastern Freeway in Collingwood to the City Link Tollway in Parkville ($6 to $8 billion)
• Part 2. a connection south to Footscray Road and the Port of Melbourne

Stage 2 (2014 election pledge)

• Connection to Western Metropolitan Ring Rd

The total cost of both stages is estimated at $15 to $17 billion.

The reasons provided by the Napthine Government for the east west tunnel are that it will:

• Cut congestion
• Slash travel times
• Drive growth
• Create jobs

Unfortunately, the first two of these are falsehoods and the second two are highly questionable.

1. Cutting congestion

Transport studies have shown that 95% of traffic travelling in on the Eastern Freeway is destined to a location other than along the route of the proposed tunnel.  This traffic is destined to the Melbourne CBD or to the south of Melbourne.  Much of this traffic exits onto Hoddle Street which turns into Punt Road.  This route is frequently gridlocked by very heavy traffic, which also impedes the passage of public transport buses.

Source: Prof Graham Currie (PDF)

The Napthine Government is advertising their East West Link on billboards positioned along Punt Road and stating that congestion will be reduced and car commuter travel times will decrease.

While the Trains Not Tollroads campaign also has billboards along Punt Road challenging these claims.

It is quite clear that the proposed East West Tunnel would do nothing to reduce congestion on Hoddle Street, Punt Road, Nicholson Street, Brunswick Street and other inner Melbourne car commuter routes.

2. Reducing travel times

"Reduced travel time" is the main benefit that Napthine Government claims the East West Tunnell will provide.  However, as the vast majority of traffic coming in on the Eastern Freeway will still have to queue to get out tunnel exits onto inner Melbourne car commuter routes, cars will bring tunnel traffic (3 lanes each way) to a stand still.  The long "tailback" of cars on the Eastern Freeway will still occur.

Building more road infrastructure, and not providing fast and effective public transport options, will encourage more people to commute in their cars.  The minor increase in road capacity provided by the East West tunnel will be simply swamped by additional car users.  There is clear evidence of this on the Monash Tollway and City Link tunnels under the Yarra River.  These are brought to a standstill nearly every morning by heavy commuter traffic.

The proposed East West Tunnel will do nothing to reduce travel times for people driving in along the Eastern Freeway.  

3. Driving growth

A lot of public money will be spent on the East West Road Tunnel/Link if it proceeds.  The assumption that "economic growth will result" is predicated on the project actually reducing congestion and improving transport of people and goods.  

As congestion won't reduce and transport times won't improve, the project won't drive growth.

Economic growth resulting from spending the money would be equivalent if it were spent on rail projects such as the Doncaster rail line.

4. Creating jobs

This is a furphy. 

The project would create jobs during design and construction, but no more jobs than building new railway lines would create.

Other impacts
Other impacts that the East West Link project will have include:

• Rat running: A toll road inevitably results in toll avoidance which will lead to rat-running in local suburbs including Collingwood, Fitzroy, Parkville, Flemington, Ascot Vale and Moonee Ponds.
• Connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists will be seriously impeded by the environment created by flyovers, and increased number of traffic lanes at Hoddle St and Flemington Road.
• Liveability: The increased space and priority devoted in this project to motor vehicle traffic is contrary to sustainable transport practices and the direction of most modern cities across the world including Los Angeles, Washingon D.C. and Naples. A liveable city prioritises investment in public transport, not tollways in the middle of the city.
• Impacts on residences close to proposed flyovers and new freeway routes, with greatly reduced amenity and without compensation have not been addressed.
• Historic shot tower: The view and prominence of the historic shot tower on Alexandra Parade will be impeded by a flyover.
• Increased noise: Adding two lanes to the existing Eastern Freeway from Hoddle Street to Tram Road will increase traffic and associated noise.
• Royal Park degradation: The large scale removal of mature trees and the removal of wetlands and open space in Park Royal are unacceptable in terms of native vegetation, habitat and biodiversity loss. The loss of sports grounds and recreational space will have a negative impact on community health and well being.
• The visual impact of widened roads, tunnel exits and flyovers on Park Royal is unacceptable.
• Climate change. The toll road will encourage increased car use and therefore increase pollution and contribute to global warming.

Why the Napthine Government is so committed to the East West Tunnel

With no real benefits, massive expenditure and no confirmed "business case" I speculate on the motives of the Napthine Government.

The project, if it proceeds, will also have huge negative impacts on Melbourne, including:

• Destruction of large parts of Royal Park
• Demolition of a lot of residential housing
• Increased traffic flows on already busy inner Melbourne transit roads
• Increased greenhouse gas emissions through increased use of motor vehicles for commuter trips
• Increased requirements for parking throughout Melbourne's inner suburbs and CBD

I think the project has been promoted to and targeted to people who already commute by car from Melbourne's outer eastern and south eastern suburbs, including Franskton and beyond.  There are several marginal seats in this area.  If the Napthine Government can convince enough people that there transit times will reduce (even though they won't) then they think have an election winner.

The people who live in inner Melbourne suburbs and electorates such as Northcote, Richmond, Melbourne and Brunswick have been written off by the Napthine Government as they live in Labor-Green seats that the Liberals will not win.  Resident's lifestyles, life quality and air quality will be just collateral damage to the Napthine government.

One possible reason that the "business case" for the proposed East West Tunnel has not been released is that it would not withstand scrutiny.

The Napthine government is placing full page advertisements in newspapers to "sell the benefits" of the East West tunnel.  Unfortunately, they are just pedaling lies.

Building a road tunnel that will become an $8 billion underground car park is a very expensive election stunt.

Solutions

The Victorian Auditor-General’s Office reported recently that in Victoria there is:

• Longstanding failure to deliver infrastructure and services needed in growth areas
• No clear plan for managing traffic congestion and travel demand
• Weak capability to manage public transport growth and performance
• Total cost of all infrastructure needed in greenfields over next 30 years is $36 billion

Clearly, there is a need to improve planning and decision-making for the delivery of improved public transport infrastructure and services 

If new railways were built road traffic would reduce. Many people would "mode shift" from road to rail. One train line can carry the same amount of people as 20 lanes of roads.  This would reduce congestion and improve travel times for those who still choose to commute in their cars.

Safe cycle paths separated from cars would encourage more people to "mode shift" from cars to bicycles for commuting.

A congestion tax levied on people commuting in cars to inner Melbourne and the CBD would reduce traffic and ease congestion.  This would also free up road space for freight transport that cannot be conveyed by rail.

A referendum on the East West Tunnel vs Doncaster Rail would allow Victorians to vote on what they think the best project is.  That would be true democracy.  

What can you do? 

Consider writing a letter to your local state Members of Parliament (upper and lower houses), the Premier Dennis Napthine and Transport Minister Terry Mulder.

You can also make a submission to the East West Link Comprehensive Impact Statement.

Will sanity prevail?

The Labor government notionally opposes the East West Tunnel, but will most likely continue with the project if they win the next state election.

Victorian politicians have demonstrated that they are incapable of making appropriate, well consider decisions on providing transport infrastructure.  We need a mechanism to separate these major decisions from political interference and election campaigning.

Efficient and sustainable transport solutions will only occur if enough people apply political pressure to both the Liberal/National and Labor political parties.

References

• East West Link, Melbourne - Wikipedia 
• East West Link - Linking Melbourne Authority 
• Download CIS documents - Linking Melbourne Authority
State of Transport forum at the Melbourne Town Hall Forum papers, including presentations from Victorian Auditor General's Office and Professor Graham Currie
• Tunnel is right, says transport tsar

• 'Optimism bias' on toll road plan
• Sale of port would fund Labor's transport scheme 
• Traffic forecast at odds with decline
• Residents in line of tunnel weigh up impact on health
• East-west link will drive Melbourne renewal 
• East west link to have major impact on communities 
• State government announces new off-ramp for east-west link 
• Secret case for link revealed 
• It's a case of cars and effect, and experts warn it can't go on
• Transparency urged for key transport projects 
• Secret report on east-west link reveals traffic explosion 

List of East West Tunnel articles

Open letter to Melbourne City Councillors on the proposed East West link toll-road tunnel

Melbourne City Councillors,

I understand that you are considering whether to support the Napthine Government's proposed "East West Link Tunnel" at a Council meeting tonight (Agenda Item 6.7 East West Link and Royal Park).

I strongly believe this proposal should not proceed for the following reasons:

• The main premise for the project - that it will solve traffic congestion problems on Hoddle St, Punt Rd and the Eastern Freeway - is not correct.  There is no evidence that it will have any effect on reducing traffic congestion.
• The tunnel construction will destroy large sections of public land, including Royal Park
• The tunnel will encouraged increased motor vehicle traffic through the city with attendant increase in health risks due to pollution and traffic
• The $8b required to build the tunnel will prevent investment in transport solutions such as the Doncaster rail line.  One railway line carries the same amount of people as 20 lanes of toll roads.
• The clear majority of traffic coming along the Eastern Freeway does so to access Melbourne's CBD rather than connecting through to City Link and the Tullamarine toll road.  The proposed EW tunnel will not service the vast majority of these commuters.
• The EW tunnel will seriously disrupt and impede cycling transport and access to the CBD.

I strongly urge you to support Doncaster Rail and oppose the East West toll tunnel.

Regards, Peter Campbell

Post script:  

At the Council meeting on Tuesday 27 August, the following Melbourne City Councillors supported the East West tunnel: Robert Doyle, Susan Riley, Kevin Louey, Ken Ong, Beverley Pinder-Mortimer.

I have asked them why and am awaiting their response.

However, Melbourne City Council will oppose the east-west link in its current form after a narrow 6-5 vote by councillors. The resolution of the Council re the East West Link is Clause 1.6 which reads as follows:

[Melbourne City Council] "Resolves that, given the City of Melbourne does not yet have the data at hand to fully assess the East-West Link and given that the need for further dialogue with LMA (Linking Melbourne Authority) and the State Government. the City of Melbourne does not support the East-West Link project as announced."

Napthine Government plans $8b underground carpark

Denis Napthine, Michael O'Brien and the Liberal government have just made a disastrous and very expensive mistake.

They announced that their priority "transport" project for Melbourne was to spend $8b digging a tunnel to connect the Eastern Freeway with the Tullamarine Freeway.

After 80 years for constructing hundreds of kilometres of high volume roads (freeways and tollways) across Victoria and into Melbourne, we still have chronic congestion.

During this period:

• no new passenger railway lines have been constructed in Melbourne since the Glen Waverley line was built in 1930.  
• Melbourne has grown from a city of 1 million to nearly 5 million in 2013.

Denis Napthine (Premier), Michael O'Brien (Treasurer) and Terry Mulder (Transport Minister) don't seem to realise that cars and roads cannot provided a workable mass transport system.  A visit to Los Angeles proves this beyond doubt.  They are now building a metro rail network in that big city.

Simple mathematics eludes our politicians:

• One train of 8 carriages can carry 1000 people.  A train line can move 50,000 people an hour.
• One freeway/tollway lane can move 2,500 people an hour.
• Four freeway/tollway lanes can move 10,000 people an hour.
• One train line moves the same number of people as twenty freeway lanes

The RACV have gleefully announced that the Napthine Government is "investing in critical transport infrastructure".  It is clear that their lobbying has been very effective, as always.

Michael O'Brien said "this is nation-building infrastructure - just look at CityLink".  O'Brien obviously hasn't looked at the stationary cars and trucks on City Link trying to get through the Burnley Tunnel, or the traffic jams on every major "freeway/tollway" the commuters try to use to get to Melbourne.

Denis Napthine has challenged the Federal Labor government to provide funds for this project, even though there is no business case for it.  Tony Abbot has announced he will commit $1.5b to the project if he becomes prime minister.

Foolish politics politics is condemning Melbourne to ongoing chronic traffic congestion and providing people with no viable transport alternative.

These people also don't seem to understand that the destination of over 90% of the people driving on the Eastern Freeway is inner Melbourne so they won't benefit from a tunnel link to the Tullamarine Freeway/Tollway.

If this "East-West tunnel" is built it too will block up with cars and become the world's most expensive underground car park.

The Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel is a rail project that formed out of recommendations in the Eddington Report.  The Napthine Government has only funded ongoing "planning" for this.  The Federal Labor Government has allocated $3 billion to this project, contingent on the Napthine Government also allocating $3 billion, which they have refused to do.  Tony Abbott has also ruled out providing funding for the rail project.

However, I am not convinced that the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel - that would provide an underground rail line from Foostcray to Caulfield - is the best rail option for Melbourne.  The authors of the Eddington Report, including Peter Newman, claim this project is "required to increase capacity in the existing rail network to allow new suburban rail lines to be built".  But they did not do an holistic study of Melbourne's rail network - their brief was only to assess "east west transport needs".

Personally, I think we need, in priority order the:

1. Rowville line, also connecting Monash University.  Shuttle service to the Dandenong line with a people interchange
2. Doncaster line, connecting near Clifton Hill
3. Melbourne Airport line, connecting Melbourne Airport to Southern Cross station
4. Melbourne outer loop underground - a circle line connecting South Melbourne, South Yarra, Richmond, Fitzroy, Carlton, Melbourne University, Docklands and Southern Cross.

Unfortunately, all we will get for the coming decades are more clogged roads that will become underground car parks.

Golding, The Age

Links

• Rail or road? Napthine takes us down the wrong route, The Age
• Tunnel won't fix traffic woes, The Age 

Oil price rises and natural calamities threaten the global economy

It is interesting to note the effect of oil price rises and natural disasters on the global economy, and Western economies in particular.

Three recent examples are:

• The 2011 Australian floods
• Increased oil prices due to unrest and regime change in the Middle East and North Africa, particularly the civil war in Libya
• The devastating Japanese earthquake of 11 March 2011

Oil price rises put immediate pressure on items like:

• Retail expenditure - household disposable income drops when fuel prices rise and people stop spending
• Inflation - price rises effectively devalue the currency
• Increase transport costs - leading to an increase in business costs and price rises for many other good and products, including food.
• A negative impact on exporters

In summary, higher oil prices act as a brake on global economic growth.  This may not be a bad thing as unlimited growth is clearly not sustainable.

However, it seems that governments and policy makers are not dealing with the reality of peak oil, rising oil prices and transitioning to the low-oil and low-carbon economies we need to cope with depletion of fossil fuels and emission reductions to help combat climate change.

Petrol has reached around AUD $1.50 a litre in Australia.

What will the impacts be when it reaches $3.00, then $5.00, and eventually $10.00 a litre?  Very serious, it would appear.

Australia's oil and gas industry is worth $28 billion in the 2009-2010 year.  We would be better off spending a large proportion of this money on transitioning to sustainable transport and energy use.

The devastating Japanese earthquake of 11 March 2011 has caused jitters throughout the global economy.  While the earth quake is not associated with climate change, it demonstrates how disruptive natural calamities can be.

It is clear that we should reduce carbon emissions locally and globally to help reduce or prevent events linked by science to climate change such as floods, droughts and bushfires.

External links

• Petrol price just barrels along, The Age
• Japan quake causes market jitters , Herald Sun
• 2011 Australian floods - Greenlivingpedia 
• The end of the world as we know it, Greenlivingpedia

Public transport for Melbourne rather than more freeways

Below is a map of the 1969 freeway plan for Melbourne. This is part of the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan commissioned by then Victorian Premier Henry Bolte, which was heavily biased in favour of freeways over public transport options such as rail.

It looks like a nightmare - Melbourne converted into Los Angeles. It is also interesting to note which freeways have been built - such as the Metropolitan Ring Road, the Monash, the Eastern, and most recently Eastlink.

Map of 1969 freeway plan for Melbourne

Here is a map from the same transport plan which shows details of proposed rail projects - including the new Rowville and Doncaster rail lines and the City Loop, which was the only one of these that was constructed.

A map of the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan map of rail projects

And here is a photograph of the new integrated freeway and train line linking the Perth CBC to Mandurah along the coast to the south.

Perth to Mandurah road and rail

So what has gone so horribly wrong in Melbourne? Why has no new suburban train line been built since the Glen Waverley line in 1930?.

The short answer to this is the triumph of short term politics and the road lobby over sensible transport planning.

The Brumby Victorian government announced another Victorian Transport Plan in 2008.

This plan provided no further suburban rail lines to Melbourne's east, but it did at least include some rail project in Melbourne's west and north. It also included a very expensive $8b rail tunnel linking Footscray with Caulfield to be built in stages. Given that the Eddington Report that the plan was based upon was tasked with investing "east west link needs", I have little confidence that a comprehensive study of Melbourne's transport needs and the best solutions was in fact conducted.

For example, new rail lines to new suburbs would surely carry more people than a tunnel linking two sections of Melbourne that not many people actually want to travel between.

Melbourne "metro train tunnel" and Tarneit link. Source: Eddington Report

Proponents of the train tunnel claim that "it is needed to free up capacity in the central rail network to allow more suburban lines to be built" but they don't provide any evidence to support this. The Eddington study was simply not tasked to investigate this so it is spurious to claim that it did. More politics with no planning. In any case, there are no plans or commitments to build any of the promised but never delivered rail lines such as Doncaster and Rowville.

Climate Change considerations

The proliferation of roads and freeways as primary transport infrastructure in Melbourne has proceeded with the assumption that fossil fuel supplies will continue forever, and that the associated carbon emissions don't really matter. The most recent Eddington Report and Melbourne Transport Plan did not even quantify emissions associated with transport modes. Both suggest that "hybrid cars" will provide the solution, when quite clearly they wont.

Here are some relevant facts from the Eddington Report:

• Car travel is the biggest transport source with more than 10 million trips across the city every day.
• About two million trips are in the morning peak and 78 per cent of Melburnians use their cars to get to work.
• 11.3 per cent of Melbournes used public transport during the morning peak.
• The demand for car travel is forecast to grow 30 per cent by 2031.

Taking the approximate figure of four million commute trips to and from work by car every day in Melbourne yields this information:

• Number of trips: 4,000,000
• CO2 per km (kg): .025 (average figure - for a Holden Commodore)
• Average length of commute trip: 9km
• Total tonnes of CO2 emitted: 900

A trip on a train has 1/8th the carbon emission of a trip by car, so if all these car journeys were shifted to trains, the total CO2 emissions would drop to 113 tonnes, resulting in a saving of 788 tonnes of CO2 per day.

It is therefore quite clear that rail transport should be the first priority for transport in Melbourne, after decades of neglect.

Our trains and trams are now full to capacity on existing lines and now significant new suburban lines are planned for the next decade. This is not acceptable.

Bass Straight oil is already greatly depleted and Australia now imports over 50% of its oil at considerable cost. If a proportion of the money spent on oil was redirected to climate friendly tranport modes such as rail and cycling, we would see some real benefits and long term financial payback.

Privatisation fails to deliver benefits

Melbourne's public transport system, including trains, trams and buses, was privatised by the Kennett government in 1999. This was done to supposedly create competition between private operaters and thereby provide better services. However, over the next decade several of the initial companies participating have exited. Three train operators became one - Connex, owned by Veolia. Two tram companies became one - which may soon also be taken over by Connex.

The proposed public bike scheme for Melbourne may also be operated by Connex if they win the contract to do so.

So there really is no "competition" except when tenders are renewed.

However, the worst impacts of privatisation are lack of accountability and lack of investment. The Brumby and preceding Bracks Labor government have chosen to retain privatised public transport. The government has blamed recent problems with cancelled services, faulty trains, whole system shut downs during heat waves on Connex. Connex in turn has responded that they operate the service but are not responsible for investing in sorely needed infrastructure improvements.

So it is stalemate, with nobody apparently accountable for delivering an effective and appropriate public transport network.

An unhealthy focus on revenue

Another undesirable by product of the privatisation of public transport is the unproductive focus on raising revenue from public transport users. This of course benefits the companies trying to make profits from the system. However, the large contingents of ticket inspectors, euphemistically called "Customer Service Officers" regularly stake out CBD stations and "bust" people for travelling without valid tickets.

Unfortunately, they often bust peoplewho make honest mistakes, such as those that carry a valid ticket but forget to validate it.

They are dishonest too. When they take your name and address they often suggest that you may not be fined - when the majority of people who they report actually do get fined.

Occasionally they are heavy handed and thuggish. Some people have been manhandled and even injured when they descend on someone en masse and attempt the "subdue" them. Such tactics are wholly inappropriate and should be left to the Police when they are warranted.

The Victorian government is also spending $1.35b - a huge amount of money - on the new Myki ticketing system - the benefits of which lie fairly obviously with Connex as the private operator. This money would be better spent on service improvements such as additional new trains or a new railway line. The current Metcard ticketing system was fully commissioned as late as 1998.

Conclusions

While the facts and figures associated with tranport can be daunting and difficult to find and assess, the directions we need to go in are quite clear.

We need more climate friendly rail and light rail transport to service new suburbs and growth corridors.

A metro service for Melbourne would provide better linkage between inner centres such as Carlton, Melbourne University, the Melbourne Zoo, South Yarra, South Melbourne and Footscray. A light rail metro similar to the Paris metro would be cheaper and more effective than the proposed heavy rail tunnel.

Some existing railway lines could be put underground (e.g. the Glen Waverley line through Toorak and the Box Hill line through Hawthorn to Camberwell and beyond) which would free up land above for residential, commercial, park and cycle path usage options.

More freeway projects such as the Frankston bypass should not proceed.

Cycle paths should be integrated with existing railway easements, where unused land within the easments is available.

We need a safe cycle path network that will allow commuters and recreational riders to use bicycles as the most climate friendly transport option.

We need our public transport system to be owned by and operated for the people, rather than for profits.

A safe climate future and a liveable city needs climate friendly transport options, and they are needed immediately.

Links

• Eddington Report recommendations
• CEN Eddington Report submission
• Frankston bypass
• 2008 Victorian Transport Plan
• 1969_Melbourne_Transportation_Plan
• Two in three Australians drive to work, study of commuting habits finds, ABC News, 3/2/14

General Motors, going, going, nearly gone

I haven't yet written about the enormous changes we have seen over the last year or so - when the capitalist system and imploded into a chaotic mess of greed, dishonesty and confusion.

I am talking about the 2008 crash, when the world's financial system and economies unravelled in a very conspicuous manner. More on that later.

I have been watching the demise of General Motors with some interests. The company has been manufacturing mostly large an inefficient cars and trucks over a quite a long period. They have remained seemingly oblivious to the previous oil shocks and more recently, the arrival peak oil.

The crash and subsequent recession in the United States has hit GM hard. Nobody is buying their cars (mostly gas guzzlers) any more. However, GM employs a lot of people in the US and across the globe, including Australia.

So the Obama administration's automotive task force has overseen a massive bailout to try and keep them afloat.

Since late 2008, GM has received $US15.4 billion from the US Treasury to keep it afloat.

On April 22 2009, GM received an additional $US2 billion ($2.8 billion) in federal assistance.

So far, the best they can do is to "ditch the Pontiac brand", while keeping the GMC, Chevrolet, Cadillac and Buick brands.

Who would have thought the United States government (and hence taxpayer) would give a failing corporation over $US 18 billion in bailout payments?

It is clear that to survive, GM needs to reinvent itself and start making cars or other products that people actually want to buy.

They should retool to make electric vehicles and think about getting into transport manufacturing for a low carbon economy future - perhaps very fast trains?

The latest deadline for GM is the threat of a bankruptcy filing if it can't meet a June 1 US deadline. Time will tell if the $18 billion of taxpayers money to keep them afloat is good money after bad.

Links

• GM to ditch Pontiac, gets more aid
• Green cars, Greenlivingpedia