| Return to Homepage |
| Preamble |
In reading "It's Time to Move" I found:
| About the PTUA |
| About the Author |
I have studied many aspects of rail, tram and bus operations, both current and historical, and am actively involved with railway societies. Over the years I have spoken at length with many railway employees (both current and past) and other people connected with the industry. I have read books which detail many aspects of railways and tramways. I have also used the Melbourne public transport system extensively.
I am not aligned with or employed by any government body, political party, public transport operator, or contractor to the public transport system.
Michael Angelico
September 2003
If any PTUA spokesperson (or anyone else) would like to debate with me on this point, I would be very happy to do so. Email me to make arrangements.
| Page 11: Transport in Melbourne: A Brief History |
This is not just an insignificant error in background information. The fact is that private railways (and, incidentally, tramways - tramways were operated by private companies until after World War I) were operated in a manner that suited commuters, and at a profit, without government subsidy or any other interference, for many years before politicians saw fit to take them over. The PTUA is quite strongly against non-government control of public transport - this error strengthens their case by "conveniently" not mentioning the fact that it has worked in the past.
| Page 11: Concluding paragraph |
...operators didn't have to worry too much about the quality of their service
Obviously the author does not understand the basic business principle that it's the customers who pay the bills. To be able to pay the bills, you have to have customers. To have customers, you have to give them something they're willing to pay for - in other words, good service. This principle was well understood back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It's only been forgotten since boom which came after the Depression and World War II, when people were so eager for these brand new things (cars, household appliances, etc) which they had no opportunity to obtain in the previous 15-20 years that they would buy anything, no matter how badly designed and manufactured.
As an example, the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company, which operated the cable tram network, had no timetables - trams were so frequent, reliable and punctual that timetables were unnecessary. Now that's good service! Incidentally, Yarra Trams has a stated aim to do the same...
| Page 15: Coordination vs Privatisation |
... encourage operators to compete with one another for passengers...
The 1999-2003 system of two train and tram operators does not encourage them to poach each others' customers any more than the previous system did. Connex and M>Train had no common track except the City Loop and Flinders Street to Richmond; M>Tram and Yarra Trams had no common track except a very short section in St Kilda. Passengers will still go to the most conveniently located station (or tram stop) and take the first service in the right direction, irrespective of who operates it.
Competition between modes is also not a big issue. For long-distance travel, tram and bus are not an option - they stop far too frequently and therefore total travel time is too high. Even the Eastern Freeway bus services are not comparable to a Box Hill express train.
The only way operators can compete against each other is to try to get passengers who live half way between lines (eg Clayton North is about equidistant from the Pakenham/Cranbourne and Glen Waverley lines, operated by M>Train and Connex respectively) to change their habits. But this can only be done by providing a better service - nicer trains, nicer station, less waiting time, etc. And in that case, whichever company gets the passengers deserves it.
| Page 16: Cost of running services under privatisation |
... contract subsidies and "incentive payments" which had already exceeded the cost of running the old PTC
This is not comparing "apples with apples". The private companies had to do all sorts of things the PTC did not - run its trains on time or face penalties, refurbish its trains and buy new ones, upgrade its stations and keep them cleaner, etc.
Also, the private companies bought the franchise, so a lot of the incentive payments and capital grants were paid to them with their own money!
| Page 17: Minimising the total journey time |
But there is no law of nature that says public transport has to be twice as slow as driving
Public transport, by its nature, can never be as convenient as private transport, since it has to satisfy many people instead of just one. Therefore services will always be based on averages which may 90% satisfy 90% of people 90% of the time, but never completely satisfy all of the people all the time.
For instance, stopping to pick up passengers is always going to slow down public transport. A car can make one hop at 60km/h (traffic lights aside), or 100km/h on a freeway, all the way to its final destination. This will always be faster than anything except an express train which has a higher speed limit - even a bus/tram with very high traffic light priority will not match a private car for speed.
Also, not all destinations are right at a railway station, tram or bus stop. Some walking will usually be necessary. Parking availability aside, a car will be able to get much closer to its final destination.
Of course Melbourne's system at present is far from ideal, and there is a lot that can be done to make PT more attractive, fast and convenient. But it will never be as fast and convenient as private transport.
| Page 17: High Frequency = Shorter waiting times |
The Victorian Railways achieved 100% reliability under Harold Clapp in the 1920s...
While I yield to nobody in my admiration for Sir Harold, I must point out that this statement is simply not true. The four-wheel wagons used in those days were notoriously unreliable, and frequently ran what is called a "Hot box", that is, an axle box (bearing) would overheat from friction and the wagon would need to be shunted off and left for repairs. Depending on the extent of the damage the load might be left in the wagon which would be forwarded on another train a day or so later, or transferred to another wagon. Therefore the VR could not guarantee that freight would be at its destination on time. (This is why the railways lost most of their freight to road transport after World War II - sending freight by rail was slow and unreliable.)
If this statement was referring only to the Spirit of Progress and other premium passenger services it may be closer to correct.
Rumour has it...
There will always be rumours floating around, and it's better not to even mention them unless they can be substantiated.
| Page 18: Improving Train Speeds |
Also, most of the time trains cannot get up to full speed or anywhere near it before it's time to slow down for another station. Only in a very few instances does a train "cruise" at the track speed limit for more than a few seconds.
The only way to make the runs faster would be to eliminate a few stations - which is good for the people who don't use them (faster journeys) but not for those who do (further to go to get to the station).
More extensive express running has the same problem. For those whose stations get skipped, they have just suffered an effective cut in service frequency. To add extra express services as well as the stoppers means triple track, more trains, more drivers, etc - large capital expenses.
| Page 21: Service Coverage: Converting the "Have-Nots" |
... suburban bus services, which are of a standard found more commonly in third-world countries than in "world cities"
Hyperbole has no place in a serious publication like this one is supposed to be. Melbourne's bus services are far from perfect, but they are not as bad as that.
| Page 27: Tram Conductors |
Now, the only staff encountered by tram passengers are poorly-trained ticket inspectors, who travel the system in packs and have no duties beyond chasing down fare evaders.
The language of this sentence is highly subjective and emotional, rather than objective and factual. Also, the facts do not line up with reality.
Passengers will encounter drivers in the cabs of trams. I have often seen drivers perform roles which used to be done by conductors.
Today's tram attendants perform the same jobs as conductors did - answering questions, assisting passengers with prams etc as needed, and preventing passengers from breaking the rules (which includes feet on seats, consumption of alcohol, etc as well as fare evasion).
I have had my ticket inspected many times while I've been out (on trains as well as trams) and every time the inspectors have been polite and respectful. When they have found someone without a ticket, they have calmly and unemotionally taken down a name and address - no dramas, no violence, or anything else I could possibly object to.
| Page 28: Safety |
| Page 28: The Public Transport Experience |
For example, the new Yarra Trams have a sleek European finish, but have no more seats than the A-class trams they are replacing and fewer seats than the 1990s-vintage B-class.
Seating is not the only criterion to look at in evaluating the worth of a type of tram. No mention has been made of the fact that the new Citadis trams can carry wheelchairs, which older trams have almost no hope of, and are much easier other for mobility-impaired passengers (eg elderly people who have trouble getting up steps) and mothers with prams to board. They have much more standing room available, which means that in peak time there is less squashing and it's easier to get to the door when your stop comes. Also the Citadis are air-conditioned, unlike the A-class.
"Superstops" are a mixed blessing... placing a 50-metre solid wall between the tram stop and the adjacent footpath
People aren't supposed to cross the road within 50m of traffic lights anyway.
Superstops are the best option we have available for on-street tram routes - certainly better than "Safety zones" or unprotected tram stops. It's not nice to complain about something unless there is a viable alternative.
| Page 29: Fare's Fair |
The practice of operators introducing their own single-mode tickets is counter-productive (and unpopular with passengers) and should cease.
As long as they still accept the inter-modal Metcard, why should they not give people the freedom to choose an alternative ticket?
For people not needing the flexibility of a Metcard, single-mode tickets are a good deal. Let's take for an example Connex's (now defunct) Connector Plus ticket. It was cheaper than a Metcard for the same zones, and gave extra benefits (coffee, movies, etc). For Connex, it meant they got the whole value of the ticket, instead of it going into the joint Metcard revenue and then Connex getting a share. For the companies providing the extra benefits, they got some advertising and they got to swap customers with Connex. So for the people who could use it, Connector Plus was a real win-win-win situation.
| Page 29: Re-staffing the System |
Public transport users may recall that five years ago, when all trams had conductors, the cost of a daily Zone 1 ticket was just over $4.
Back then the PTC was bleeding the state to death. Also services were much worse, as outlined elsewhere.
When one-man operation of trams was originally being mooted in the late 1980s-early 1990s, it was thought that the W-class trams could not operate without conductors, and that therefore a higher fare would be charged on all W-class trams to cover the cost of retaining conductors.
| Page 31: Reconnecting Victoria |
Of people asked in a government survey why they did not use the train for country travel, 62% cited the need for a car at their destination. ... Decent town bus services in regional centres, focussed on the railway station and town centre and coordinated with trains, would eliminate the need for a car in a significant proportion of these cases.
This would only be so if all the passenger's journeys were to be within the town centre. Therefore we have another instance of "haves" and "have nots" - anyone whose origin or destination is outside the town centre will be reliant on their own transport, usually a motorbike or car.
... given that most regional towns have population densities similar to Melbourne suburbs
Apart from Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo many are small enough that most trips which are in the area where a bus service could be reasonably viable could just as easily be taken on foot or bike. Nobody is going to wait even ten minutes for a ride when it would take five minutes to walk or cycle. And as stated above, many journeys would need to go outside the densely populated area, where a public transport service is simply not a viable option.
| Page 32: A Revitalised Country Network |
Needless to say, good policy does not distinguish between "services for tourists" and "services for commuters" (or any other class of traveller).
There is a world of difference between the operation of a tourist line and a commuter line. Commuters are likely to be in more of a hurry - jump off the bus onto a train, get there as quick as possible, etc. A tourist is more likely to look at the scenery, buy some souveniers, take photos, etc and will not be so annoyed at a half-hour wait. A commuter will be only too pleased to have all that old junk cleared away to make way for something more convenient, while a tourist will prefer to see a historic station building, a steam engine and old style carriages. And so on.
If the tourists are simply using the service to get to their destination, the above statement is roughly correct - with the exception that since they are not locals and regular travellers they may need extra assistance. However if the ride is the attraction (as in the case of heritage tourist railways) it cannot be compared with a commuter service.
| Page 1: The Escalating Spiral of Road Funding |
Also, it is not as useful to show total expenditure as it would be to divide the costs into maintenance (eg patching an existing road which has deteriorated) and capital (building new roads, widening existing roads, etc).
| Page 4: Mitchell Freeway/Northern Suburbs Rail Line |
These statistics are not easy to gather accurately. However to be perfectly fair it would be better to ackowledge that these variations are not accounted for.
| Page 4: The concrete heart of Ringwood |
| Page 5: Efficiency of Transport Modes |
| Page 7: Pollution per person by transport mode |
| Page 8: Australian Average Household Emissions |
| Page 9: Lines show relationships between residents |
However, as a statistic it suffers from the same problems as stated previously. At least it does not put clear figures on relationships, because it could never be anywhere near accurate. How can so subjective a thing as a relationship be reduced to a number?
| Page 30: Population Density |
Raw population density, that is, population divided by land area, does not actually give an accurate picture when planning for public transport. A simple number does not guarantee that the people will be there to use a service when and if it is put in place.
| Page 17: High Frequency = Shorter waiting times |
Melbourne has 15% more trains than are required to operate peak-hour service, so it should be feasible to eliminate cancellations. (See note 29)Note 29 says: Personal communication with railway employees. Connex and M>Train between them own 304 3-car sets (including the 4D Double Decker Train). Current peak services require approximately 265 three-car sets to run. This leaves a surplus of 39 3-car sets or 19 6-car sets.
If the PTUA had run this statement past the railway employees who gave them the figures, they might have saved themselves from some considerable embarrassment.
Trains need regular maintenance. While they are undergoing maintenance, they can't be suddenly called upon to prevent a cancellation. Most train travellers would know that in peak hour it is very rare for trains to be sitting in stabling yards - although there are usually several in the maintenance depots at Westall, Epping and Bayswater.
Even if Melbourne did have that many trains just sitting around, it would not be possible to totally eliminate all cancellations. Some are due to accidents on the railway line (the police need unrestricted access to examine the scene), extreme weather conditions, and many other factors which are completely outside the control of the railway operator.
For those occasions when it is the fault of the train, the normal procedure is this. The driver notices something wrong, investigates and tries to rectify the fault. This can take some time. If he cannot solve the problem, he will declare the train defective and the service will be cancelled, and the train will be taken to a stabling yard until such a time as it can be transferred to the workshops to have the fault rectified.
If a stand-by train (with driver) is available, it has to cover the distance between the stand-by siding and the place where the first train became defective - without delaying ordinary services. Even in the best-case scenario, with a spare train at Camberwell and the defective train somewhere on the triple-track section which runs from Burnley to Box Hill, it would take at least five minutes to get there. So the passengers will still be waiting at least 15 minutes before a replacement train comes - at the absolute minimum. In most cases another following service will arrive before a replacement train. Current timetables make it almost impossible to catch up that much time, so there is very little point replacing a failed train unless it happens where another train is immediately available - except in peak time when capacity is an issue as well as frequency.
Much more research should be undertaken before making such a pretentious statement as "it should be feasible to eliminate cancellations".
| Page 24-26: Projects |
| Page 24: Project 2. East Doncaster train [sic] line |
| Page 24: Project 3. Airport Train Extension |
This would require more capital expenditure than is proposed: signalling improvements and possibly either crossing (passing) facilities or triple track. Also, extra trains would be needed - even to maintain existing service frequency on a longer route.
| Page 25: Project 4. Anticipating the Growth |
New stations on existing lines would, in general, not usually be a good idea. For the people within walking distance of the site, they would be ideal. However for people whose trains have to make an extra stop, they would be unwanted. Average distance between stations should be in the range of about 2km. For the Newport West, Eltham North, Hartwood and Southland stations I would recommend either a good bus connection or the moving of an existing station. For Cave Hill, Narre Warren and Southland new stations might be acceptable because currently the distance is greater, but they would still slow down trains by two to three minutes, when we should be making every effort to save as many minutes as possible. The sooner a train gets to the end of the line, the sooner it can start back, which means that efforts made to make services faster also allows them to be made more frequent, without buying extra trains.
| Page 26: Project 5. Tram gap-filling program |
The costs given seem too low to have taken this into consideration.
| Page 26: Temporal Coverage |
| Page 27: Ticketing |
Revalidation is really not the problem it is cracked up to be. People have to keep their ticket handy anyway in case it needs to be inspected, so why not run it through a machine whenever they board a new vehicle? It only takes a couple of seconds. And if everyone did it, it would automatically give some statistics which would help the planners measure patronage and add extra services as needed. (The only reason they are "unreliable" is because a large percentage of passengers don't validate.)
The problems of the ticketing system are not nearly as serious as they are accused of being. I personally have travelled quite extensively over the whole suburban system. I have never yet omitted to validate my ticket except when the validators are switched off or the tram is literally so crowded that I can't get to the validator. I have never lost money in a ticket machine; I have never been given incorrect change; a faulty validator on a tram is a very rare occurance (and even then there are several per tram so it's no real problem).
| 1. Privatisation is a Bad Thing (and Government Operation is a Good Thing) |
However we know that the government operation does not guarantee good service, because:
Politicians really doesn't care about us once they have our vote. The only reason they want to look like they're doing the right thing is because it's good for their popularity, which means they might beat the opposition at the polls next time.
Because they need to be popular in time for the next election, they will seldom do the "right" thing for public transport such as installing a new heavy rail line to an unpopulated area in order to encourage its growth. They will be more likely to "patch up" an area with bad public transport by paying a bus company to operate a service in a newly developed residential area. That is, if they bother to do anything at all.
Also, PT services are likely to become a political football, with marginal seats getting better services (to induce them to vote for me) and strong Labor/Liberal seats getting next to nothing (because they are, or are not, going to vote for me anyway).
On the other hand, a private company is much more likely to have a CEO in place for five or more years, in which case he will live to see the fruits of his early labours. Also, shareholders are more likely than taxpayers to be able to see the wisdom of spending money now in order to be able to give good service (which means more customers, which means more profits) several years down the track.
A private company must serve its customers well in order to stay afloat (government subsidies aside). A government operated system will just require more money out of the state's budget next year if it drives its customers away by giving bad service. A company's CEO loses his job if the customers are angry enough. A government minister or public servant feels no personal repercussions.
The underlying idea is this: money talks. If it is made worth a company's while financially to give good service, they will give good service. A prime example of this is the on-time running of today's privatised tram and train services - since financial incentives were made for good service, cancellations and late-running have dropped dramatically. Compare today's figures with some from the PTC days.
It is quite easy to place a privatised PT service on such a footing. Tell them that they will get an extra subsidy if they put on more late-night or weekend services, or off-peak expresses, or anything else that "should" be done but nobody has done yet - and stand back and watch the results (over a few years, of course).
Since 1999 we have seen:
| 1.1. Specifically, Privatisation means Dis-integration |
There is no real reason this needs to be so. Major airlines manage to draw up agreements with regionals (and also hire car companies, hotels, etc) to "feed" each other customers, without having to own them. The only reason private bus, tram and train operators have not done the same is because they haven't thought about it.
Look back over the last 20 years - government operation under one operating body (MTA and later PTC) did not do anything to make a single integrated system.
Although this book does a reasonably good job of outlining some of the shortcomings of the current system, it cannot be regarded as a useful publication that will help to fix it.