Plans, trains and automobiles, and the way forward

[ozbob]

From Melbourne Age click here!

Plans, trains and automobiles, and the way forward

Plans, trains and automobiles, and the way forward

January 23, 2008

BY NEXT week the summer holidays for most people will have sunk below the shimmering horizon. The daily journey to work and back will resume; roads will accommodate the "usual" level of vehicles and the rail network in the city and country will carry the "usual" number of commuters. And therein lies the trap for urban and transport planners. There is no usual level of patronage for rail services, nor of vehicles on city roads. Both are on the rise and both trends are being inadequately managed.

Several developments this week highlight the problems planners and, at the front line, commuters face in getting from Point A to Point B. This is especially so in Melbourne. Yesterday's lead story in The Age reported the State Government conceding that its $1 billion bay-deepening project will lead to increased road traffic, which in turn helps the argument for an east-west road tunnel. In providing a much greater capacity for container freight, it necessarily follows that more trucks will use the roads to transport those containers.

At present the Port of Melbourne produces 1.2 million truck visits annually, which is predicted to rise to 8 million visits by 2035, even though the city's roads have been assessed as being able to handle only 4 million. Premier John Brumby, Transport Minister Lynne Kosky and Roads and Ports Minister Tim Pallas met transport bosses yesterday to discuss the city's congestion difficulties. Trucking magnate Lindsay Fox has been forthright in criticising the bay-deepening project and the increase in traffic it will generate, labelling it as "stupid" and a short-term solution. Mr Brumby disagrees.

Mr Fox's comments reinforce the sentiments of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on Monday after cabinet had agreed to the creation of Infrastructure Australia, a statutory body that will examine how best to develop strategies for transport, water and energy needs in the cities. The Prime Minister rightly pointed to the negative impact of traffic congestion on the economy. Gridlock costs time and efficiency. There were failures in planning, leadership and co-ordination.

Those three factors, it can also be argued, are the root of the problems in the public transport system. Operating a public transport system requires a visionary approach, not a reactive spasm. Melbourne's population is predicted to reach 5 million in just over 20 years. How that population gets around the city is of crucial importance now. The metropolitan and rural systems are experiencing enormous growth in passenger numbers: more than 20% increase for the city over the past two years and similar growth on V/Line services, with up to 49% on the Bendigo line. It is true that the State Government has a 10-year transport plan, including more trains on order, but the steps in creating more rail lines and the associated infrastructure for this residential growth also need to be in place now.

The figures for rail patronage clearly show that given a service ? reliable, comfortable and inexpensive ? people will use it. Two other factors have a strong bearing on public transport: the rising cost of petrol and emissions from vehicles. Cars and trucks not only choke the roads, they choke the atmosphere.

It may seem a small byway in the argument, but the fiasco of the proposed bike ban on trains, illustrates a telling point in why clear-headed thinking is needed. Ms Kosky is to review her ban after she said yesterday that she had been "misinformed" by her department. (On the same day, the Government announced a $52 million upgrade of Clifton Hill station.)

Of all the options a government could take in the transport sector, moving against the most environmentally friendly set of wheels on the road was madness. What message could people derive from the ban but that the Government not only did not care about sustainability but actually worked against it? It is welcome news that the minister is reviewing the ban, but there should not have been a need for it in the first place.