It would be good to know whether the people who make decisions about Melbourne's public transport system actually use it. And it would also be good to know if they have ever stopped to ask themselves why we have public transport in the first place.
Last month the State Government suggested that Victorian businesses should change their office hours so that fewer commuters travelled during peak hour. Then a few days ago, former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer called for a tax to be levied on motorists who entered the centre of Melbourne.
These proposals might be well-meaning, but they're wrong. Neither tackles the question of how to solve Melbourne's public transport problems. It is absurd that commuters should change their working hours to suit the public transport system. The suggestion is an admission of failure. The Government is as good as saying that because it can't get the trains to run on time everybody should start work late (or early).
The practical difficulties of changing business hours are significant. Different office hours for different businesses and different workers is confusing and costly. And there's no guarantee that changing office hours will make a difference anyway. What could happen is that the peak-hour crush would occur at 8.30am instead of 7.30am.
A more fundamental objection is based on principle. Public services should meet the needs of the public, not the other way around. This applies regardless of the service provided.
If the system can't satisfy the demands of the people, then it's the system that should be changed. When he raised the idea of having commuters change their work hours, Deputy Premier Rob Hulls remarked that Melburnians had to "update their thinking" about public transport.
Hopefully we'll never be forced to "update" our thinking to such an extent that we abandon the concept of public transport as a service to meet the convenience of the public.
It is a demonstration of the confused state of public transport policy that even though it is clear that the system can't accommodate the existing number of passengers, Tim Fischer wants to increase the burden on the system even further.
A congestion tax is the latest in a long line of ideas to reduce Melbourne's traffic. The tax would force people who want to travel to the city to take public transport. This is fine if individuals have a choice about how to travel to the city. People living close to the city are lucky enough to be able to choose from a variety of ways, whereas those living in the outer suburbs don't have that luxury.
One of the problems with a congestion tax is that it discriminates against people whose only option to travel to the city is by car. Many parts of Melbourne simply don't have access to regular or reliable public transport.
A congestion tax would make it too expensive for many people without access to public transport to travel to the city by car. The central business district of Melbourne would be at risk of becoming an exclusive enclave for people living in the inner suburbs.
Advocates for a congestion tax point to London and Singapore as places that have successfully introduced such a tax. However, both those cities have better public transport systems than Melbourne.
Given that our public transport system is barely coping now, it's difficult to envisage how it could manage if a congestion charge was introduced. This point was recognised by Fischer when he acknowledged that before any tax is introduced, Melbourne's rail system would have to be upgraded. But the reality is that the system would have to be more than just upgraded: a whole series of entirely new lines would need to be constructed. It's debatable whether any government would be willing to engage in such an exercise. The last major extension of the metropolitan rail network was half a century ago.
To a large extent, the problems of the public transport system are a product of its own success. Following privatisation, patronage went up as the quality of service improved and use of Melbourne's public transport system is now growing faster than in any other capital city. What has been missing is the necessary investment in infrastructure. Expenditure on rolling stock and improved signalling is not as attractive to governments as some of the alternatives. Why spend money on suburban rail lines when there's a Grand Prix to support? The supposed "economic benefit" of the Grand Prix is used by the State Government as a justification for financing the $35 million the race lost last year. It appears no one has asked what would be the benefit of people getting to work quicker and home to their families sooner if the public transport system were improved.
It is State Government policy that by 2020, 20% of all transport trips in Melbourne will be taken by public transport. Currently, public transport trips comprise about 10% of all trips. On present indications there is no chance whatsoever of the Government achieving its target. The target is a theory that has no basis in reality.
Asking people to change their work hours or imposing congestion charges are political stunts that divert attention from the real issues of Melbourne's failing public transport system.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment