Re: Airport rail link

[amorton@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Anthony Morton)]

whitehat <whitehat@alphalink.com.au> wrote:

>To a certain extent we have a chicken and egg situation in Melbourne. People
>travel radially by public transport because it is the only convenient way to
>travel - and public transport develops radially because that is the way
>people travel. If you are, say, a student going to Monash University in
>Clayton, you will most likely find accommodation in the appropriate corridor
>or be forced to travel by car. The existence of the radial model perpetuates
>the radial model. Similarly, certain outer regional clusters could develop
>and thrive over time if good quality cross-suburb transport structure was
>available

But of course there's a difference between description and prescription -
between saying what we _do_ do and what we _ought_ to be doing.  I think
you'll have a very hard time persuading people that _wilfully_ abandoning our
radial settlement pattern in favour of more circumferential travel is a good
idea, given that even the most one-eyed road-oriented technocrats concede that
this guarantees a decreasing market share for public transport and therefore
works against long-term sustainability.

It's much easier to argue (if incorrectly) that there in fact _is_ a lot of
circumferential travel and we therefore need the circumferential links just
to meet existing demand.  This IMHO is the only argument for ring-freeways
and ring-railways that makes any sense, but it's also contradicted by the
census data.

>We should also remember that transporting people is only part of the
>picture. If Victoria really wants to remain Australia's manufacturing hub it
>has to be able to transport goods, parts and components quickly, efficiently
>and often from A to B. Freeways play some part in this equation. The green
>wedges are a valuable part of Melbourne but don't preclude well planned
>cross suburb transport links.

But I thought this is what we needed Citylink for: to move goods between the
freight-intensive areas in the south east and the ports and airports.  It's
been said that freeway planning is a continuous moving feast, and this is the
sort of thing being referred to: we were told all the freight was on the
South Eastern Freeway and needed to bypass Melbourne to get to the airport.
Now that they can do so, we're being told it's really going via Ringwood and
needs an Eastern Ring Road to speed the journey to the airport via
Greensborough.

For their part, the freight managers of businesses in the so-called
'Scoresby Corridor' rate the Scoresby Freeway as a low priority, below such
things as port upgrades, local road works, and improved public transport for
their employees.

>Things have changed enormously in Melbourne since the radial train and tram
>model first grew up. Some of the more significant changes over time include:
>
>* Much fewer people with a predictable starting time and knock-off time for
>  work
>* More people transporting bulky items to and from work
>* Journey-to-work used to be the major travel consideration.
>  Journey-as-part-of-work is now a major part of the transport equation
>* Fewer organisations prepared to concede work-based travel time as 'down
>  time'
>* The major employer in Australia is now small business - i.e. small
>  workforces spread widely.
>* An employee will change their workplace (and possibly place of abode) more
>  often than in the past

But none of these things mandate an increased focus on circumferential travel.
Indeed, the census figures show that all these things have happened within
predominantly radial travel patterns.  And while employment locations and
working hours have changed, the worst traffic congestion is still caused by
tidal flows in peak hours, just as it always has been.

>Unfortunately, public transport has been slow to adapt to these changes. It
>would often appear that future planning is based mainly on those who
>currently use public transport, and not on those who want to use it but
>can't, or those who could be enticed onto it if it suited their needs.

I entirely agree.  There is a bureaucratic fixation with public transport as
being exclusively for peak-hour central-city commuters, students, pensioners
and the odd special event.  This idea even found its way into Transporting
Melbourne, the Kennett policy statement.  Proper public transport, on the
other hand, accommodates the majority of travel needs of the majority of
people.

>As someone who has consistently tried to use the most appropriate transport
>in Melbourne for many years (i.e. walk, bike, car, public transport, car,
>etc) I find myself using public transport less and less. It has improved in
>the last couple of years, but still not kept pace with the needs of myself
>or my colleagues.On the other hand, I find myself using public transport
>overseas more and more.

....which emphasises that there are valuable lessons to be learnt from
overseas experience.

>Consistent, civilised cross-suburb public transport
>on which we could work and carry bulky work items would certainly entice a
>number of us back - and we would possible be prepared to pay a premium to do
>so.

Indeed; but let's get the fundamentals right and repair Melbourne's hopeless
bus services, so everyone has a guaranteed basic bus service of decent quality,
before we start building rail lines from every conceivable origin to every
conceivable destination.

Cheers,
Tony M.

Public Transport Users Association         http://www.vicnet.net.au/~ptua/