Interview with Paul Mees

Always insightful, Paul Mees is interviewed, this time by Yorran Pelekenakis.

Most of the interview is about public transport in Melbourne, as that is Mees's expertise. However, here's an excerpt where he discusses the road tunnel.

...
YP: The rail tunnel aside, on its own merits what is your opinion of the proposed road tunnel?

PM: The road tunnel is much worse than the rail tunnel. The rail tunnel is only a waste of money, whereas the road tunnel would be incredibly damaging for Melbourne as well as being a waste of money.

YP: The main reasons it’s so damaging being more cars?

PM: It’s not just that. I think part of the problem is, and this is an illustration of inner suburban bias, I don’t think people should be referring to it as a tunnel because in the western suburbs from Footscray right through to Western Sunshine it’s intended to be on the surface or even elevated above the surface.

It’s just going to be bashed through people’s suburbs and houses according to the Eddington report. So it’s quite inaccurate to call it a tunnel because for about half its length, it’s not to be a tunnel at all. Only in the rich part of Melbourne do you get a tunnel and in the working class areas, just bulldoze it straight through people’s houses.

So, the first thing is the direct affect on all those people but then its bad for Melbourne as a whole, and it would be bad even if it was all in a tunnel, because essentially its about entrenching automobile dependence at a time when we ought to be doing the opposite.
...

YP: What’s your opinion of the current Yarra Campaign Against the Tunnel?

PM: I think they’re doing good work and there are lots of other local campaign groups as well. I think it would be great if we could find some way of linking up the different local groups so that their campaigns can collectively produce a stronger voice.

I think the next step has to be, and not just in Yarra, taking the campaign to the local government elections. Making sure that we have local councils elected that will fight on this issue and not just issue platitudinous statements along the lines of “wouldn’t it be nice if people rode their bikes more?” but that will actually throw there resources and their political clout as councils behind getting the transport agenda changed.

Read the whole interview at The Socialist Party's No Tunnel Blog

When we get some more indication of policies from people running for council in Melbourne, we'll post it up here. We'd encourage each and every resident of Melbourne to contact the candidates and let them know what is important to you. More than that, let them know that unless they come out saying they will actively oppose the building of the tunnel in Holland Park (for Kensington residents primarily, but also throw in Royal Park, and the destruction of houses etc etc), you won't vote for them.

For what it's worth, at the recent meeting he held at the Bowling Club Will Fowles said that his group would oppose the tunnel and the construction of Holland Park, however when it comes down to it, it's a State Government decision and it's out of their hands.

Personally, I don't quite think that's good enough.

Brimbank residents launch No Tunnels campaign

A report from our friends at YCAT.

...People often ask me why don't more people use public transport in Melbourne. My response, when people ask me that is would anyone want to use public transport in Melbourne, it's so terrible...

Paul Mees speaking at the Brimbank Residents meeting.

On Tuesday, 12 August 2008 Chris, Steve and I represented YCAT at a Brimbank Residents Meeting at the Glengala Community Centre in Sunshine.

The meeting was well attended, 250 residents and representatives from local Resident Groups who voted to formalise the Brimbank Campaign Against the Tunnel and elected a Steering Committee.

Paul Mees, as the keynote speaker, regaled the meeting with a personal, pertinent travel antidotes of his journey from the city to the meeting venue which involved several hours, no connecting transport links, extreme cold, no shelters and refugees who could not understand why Australia, as a first world country, has worse public transport than their country of origin.

Paul also had some interesting statistics on the Sydenham Line – in 1998 there were four peak hour trains a day, two in the morning and two in the evening, with the recent 2008 increase in service on the Sydenham Line there are five trains a day. An increase of one (1) train in ten years at a time been 300,000 people a day now travel to the city to work They certainly can’t drive as 300,000 people in two square meters leaves no room for cars.

In the later part of his speech, Paul Mees indicated that, from his perspective the infrastructure for increasing public transport already exists - Use the existing rail system…. it is (already) the most extensive by world standards. The alternatives (to road transportation) are not explored as the consultants and government ministries and departments favour roads. It is not even an economic argument – the proposed 9.5 billion is three times the cost of the Snowy Mountains Scheme”

Paul concluded with a quote from a Transport Officer in Vancouver, who on hearing of the situation in Australia and specifically Victoria said How do they (the government) get away with it? How indeed?

Following Paul Mees, Colleen Hartland, Upper House, and Melbourne West spoke and pledged the Greens support for the campaign and agreed to ask a number of questions in the house on behalf of the meeting.

I was then asked to speak for YCAT, which I did by outlining our campaign structure and focus in Yarra. Several speakers followed this from the floor and one local councillor.

• The primary concerns of the residents of Brimbank are:
• The Toll Road
• The lack of community consultation by the State Government
• The secretary surrounding the Eddington Plans
• The proposed truck and transport link with the Westgate Freeway
• The loss of private homes estimated at 500+ and compensation?
• The grieve and community dislocation this will cause
• The probable elevated tollway connection to the Western Ring Road

It was a positive and empowering meeting and, on behalf of YCAT, we indicated our commitment to work together on this campaign.

Freda Watkin
15.08.08

Does Melbourne need another central city rail tunnel?

I've only just happened across Dr Paul Mees's EWLNA submission. If you have ever heard him speak, you will know a lot of this. If you haven't, it's very interesting reading and I'd encourage everyone to take a look. A quick excerpt...

The $8.5 billion rail tunnel budget alone could pay for:

• elimination of all rail level crossings in greater Melbourne ($3 billion), plus
• new lines to East Doncaster, Rowville (via Monash), Mornington, Aurora, Mernda (via South Morang) and Melbourne Airport ($2 billion), plus
• electrification of lines to Melton (via Caroline Springs, and including track duplication), Sunbury and Cranbourne East, and duplication of single-track sections on the Cranbourne, Hurstbridge, Epping, Lilydale, Belgrave and Altona lines ($1 billion), plus
• doubling the size of the train fleet ($2 billion)

• 
  

Read the whole submission here...

Sorry, Sir Rod, your rail tunnel plan is just loopy

IT'S been a long time between drinks for advocates of rail in Melbourne. The last new suburban line was the Glen Waverley line, which opened in 1930. It was to be followed by one to Doncaster, but the Depression and war intervened. Since then, plans for links to Monash University, Rowville and Melbourne Airport have also come to nothing.

But things may be changing. A new Prime Minister has begun talking about urban rail and, after decades of decline, patronage is growing again.

Enter Sir Rod Eddington. His report on east-west transport proposes the biggest capital expenditure program in Australian history. Half the $18 billion is for a single road project, which Eddington's own consultant economists suggest has a benefit-cost ratio well below one — which in plain English means it's a waste of money.

The other major project is a rail tunnel from Footscray to Caulfield, and Eddington has been talking up this aspect. He has criticised, without naming, people who have questioned the need for the rail tunnel. He describes this questioning as "dangerous nonsense", a stance echoed by Melissa Fyfe in The Sunday Age last week.

How could supporters of public transport question the wisdom of spending $8.5 billion on rail? Isn't it time Melbourne put serious money into an underground line to enable more trains to run to the city centre?

The simple answer is that Melbourne has already done just this. That's what the City Loop, which cost $5 billion in today's money, was all about. It's set out in the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan, which shows the system was intended to handle much higher volumes of trains and passengers than it carries today. There were to be new lines to places such as Doncaster and Rowville, more frequent services and more expresses.

Annual patronage was supposed to reach 300 million by 1985; in fact, this year it might reach 200 million. The number of suburban trains arriving at Flinders Street in the busiest hour was to jump from 108 in 1964 to 181 in 1985; instead, it's fallen to 95. There was to be an express from Mordialloc every two minutes in peak hour; instead there's one a day.

One reason patronage is lower than anticipated is that none of the proposed suburban lines were built because the loop chewed up all the available funds. The priority now should be to start work on those long-overdue new lines, plus electrifying existing routes to places such as Caroline Springs and Melton.

But Eddington is proposing that nothing be done to serve these areas. He wants to spend all available money on a rail tunnel that will duplicate the one we already have and which won't be finished until at least 2019, giving rail managers an excuse for another decade of inaction.

What reasons does Eddington offer for not utilising the spare capacity on the system? His report does not discuss the issue at all. Instead, it compares Melbourne's rail system with the way it operated in the 1930s, showing that we now run more express services. So what? We run far fewer expresses than the loop was designed to handle, as the 1969 plan shows.

The problems that are clogging the system are set out in a consultants' report that, although available on the Eddington website, is not discussed in his report. The Transport Supply and Demand report shows there are eight in-bound tracks serving Flinders Street: four running via the City Loop, and four "direct". Each is signalled to handle a train every two minutes, or 30 an hour. This would allow a total of 240 trains an hour, but international best practice suggests running at 80% to maintain reliability. That's 192 trains an hour, or twice the current level.

The real problem is not in the Loop at all: it's in the Department of Transport and Connex. The consultants outline the poor operating practices preventing available capacity from being used, ranging from crew changes delaying trains at Flinders Street to poor internal carriage layout slowing boarding. Instead of fixing the problems, Eddington proposes giving the department $8.5 billion to duplicate the Loop, along with an excuse for doing nothing else for a decade.

That's why Eddington has missed the train.

Paul Mees is a senior lecturer in transport planning at RMIT.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/sorry-sir-rod-your-rail-tunnel-plan-is-just-loopy-20080621-2uke.html?page=-1