CORRECTED VERSION

OUTER SUBURBAN/INTERFACE SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Inquiry into liveability options in outer suburban Melbourne

Whittlesea — 12 May 2011

Members

Ms J. Graley Ms L. McLeish Ms N. Hutchins Mr C. Ondarchie Mrs J. Kronberg

Chair: Mrs J. Kronberg Deputy Chair: Ms J. Graley

Staff

Executive Officer: Mr N. Bunt

Witnesses

Mr L. Deacon, joint managing director, Dyson’s Bus Services; Mr C. Loader, manager, transport planning and policy, Bus Association Victoria.

12 May 2011 Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee 63 The CHAIR — I extend a warm welcome to Mr Lance Deacon, joint managing director, Dyson’s Bus Services, and Mr Chris Loader, manager, transport planning and policy, Bus Association Victoria. We are looking forward to hearing what you have to say in terms of contributions to our inquiry today. This committee is an all-party parliamentary committee. The evidence we are hearing today is on the inquiry into liveability options for outer suburban Melbourne. I now have a formal piece to read to you.

We welcome you to the public hearings of the Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee. All evidence taken at this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege, as provided by the Constitution Act 1975 and further subject to the provisions of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, the Defamation Act 2005 and, where applicable, the provisions of reciprocal legislation in the other Australian states and territories. Any comments you make outside the hearing may not be afforded such privilege.

Gentlemen, as you can see, the evidence we take here is being recorded by Hansard, the transcription service of the Parliament. There will be a proof transcript of what has been said today available for you in about two weeks time, and you will be able to make any corrections to spelling and so forth but not to the actual form of what has been transcribed.

I am going to ask first and foremost Mr Lance Deacon to give us his full name, whether he is attending in a private capacity or representing an organisation, what position he holds in that organisation if that is so, and the address of the organisation.

Mr DEACON — My full name is Lance William Deacon. I am a director of L.C. Dyson’s Bus Services Pty Ltd. We are located just down the road here at 121 McKimmies Road, Bundoora. I will throw in a little bit more information. We are a very large employer in the city of Whittlesea; we employ approximately 700 people and operate approximately 400 buses.

The CHAIR — Thank you.

Mr LOADER — My name is Chris Loader. I work with Bus Association Victoria, which is the peak body representing bus operators in Victoria, of which Dyson’s is a member. My role there is manager of transport planning and policy. The association is located at 450 Graham Street, Port Melbourne.

The CHAIR — Thank you. Before we proceed, have you received a copy of this pamphlet outlining the rights and responsibilities of witnesses in hearings?

Mr LOADER — No, I haven’t.

The CHAIR — Could the executive officer tender those please? Does that apply to Mr Deacon as well?

Mr DEACON — Yes.

The CHAIR — We will give you a moment to take that in.

Mr LOADER — I am comfortable, thank you.

The CHAIR — Are you happy to proceed?

Mr LOADER — Yes.

The CHAIR — Gentleman, there is a very attractive PowerPoint presentation on the screen behind you. Who is going to formally make the presentation?

Mr LOADER — Myself.

The CHAIR — I invite Mr Chris Loader to make the presentation.

Overheads shown.

Mr LOADER — Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the committee this afternoon. I will hopefully go through the presentation quickly so that there is time for questions.

12 May 2011 Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee 64 I want to give you an overview of transport issues in the outer suburbs, and I will give some focus to Whittlesea as well. It will be no surprise to you that the outer suburbs of Melbourne are very car-dependent. The map you see here represents car ownership levels in Melbourne — you can see the CBD in the inner-south there. The red patches on this map are where there is a car for every adult living in the area. You can see in some of these outer areas that just about every adult between 20 and 74 years of age has a car; it is the way they get around.

This chart — the data is supplied by the Department of Transport — shows the vehicle kilometres travelled by car through different local government areas across Melbourne. Those red bars you can see are the outer council areas of Melbourne; people are travelling much longer distances. We have a fantastic level of car dependence in the outer suburbs, and that creates a real risk.

The next map I am showing new is called the VAMPIRE index — very interestingly named. It is the vulnerability assessment for mortgage, petrol and inflation risks and expenditure. It was put together by some research from Griffith University. The red areas on this map highlight those areas of Melbourne that are most vulnerable to rising fuel prices, and I think we are all aware of some of the issues around fuel prices. If global oil production cannot keep up with global oil demand, we might be heading for some significant rises in prices. The CSIRO has been involved in a report that suggested $8 a litre might be something we experience in the not-too-distant future. We have in the outer suburbs of Melbourne a high level of car dependence, and this creates a high risk in terms of expenditure and liveability.

There are other implications of current transport patterns in outer Melbourne. We have looked at the household travel survey data from VISTA — this is 2007–08 — and what this map shows you is the minutes of walking and cycling the average person travelling in these areas does as part of their transport. You can see in the northern part of Whittlesea — it is probably too hard to read on the screen — that the average is 5.8 minutes of walking and cycling per person in the northern parts of Whittlesea in the growth areas. This is a product of very high car dependence. That is not to say that people are not getting health benefits through other exercise and activity, but they are not getting incidental exercise through the use of transport. Our research has found that people who use public transport on a given day are likely to spend 41 minutes walking and/or cycling as part of their journey, which is in line with the recommendations for maintaining health.

Here is a map of the public transport network in Whittlesea. There is a fairly comprehensive network, but there are quite a few gaps. Just here in South Morang there is no public transport within 400 metres of a lot of people. There are gaps in Epping north, such as in this part of South Morang, Mernda and parts of Doreen, where public transport does not reach people.

There is a reasonably good span of hours — most bus routes in Whittlesea run 7 days a week until 9 o’clock at night — but we have some coverage gaps, which are highlighted on the next map. The red areas on this map are residential areas that have been developed between 2004 and 2009, and the orange areas are what was forecast to be developed in 2010 and 2011. I have overlaid on that in grey the areas that are within 400 metres of public transport routes, so what you see left here are the urban areas that are beyond public transport reach today. There are quite a few areas in Whittlesea, and you can also see some gaps across in Hume. There are similar pictures in the western and south-eastern suburbs. We have a real issue of public transport keeping up with urban development in the growth areas. I will talk more about that shortly.

Another aspect of transport, again from the household travel survey, is the amount of travelling people do. The average across Melbourne is about 3.5 trips per person, but what we find in some of these growth areas is that, in Whittlesea for example, the average number of trips per person is 2.6. That may be a product of different household types, but there is a relationship between the amount of travel people do and their level of social inclusion. If travel is difficult and people are travelling less, then there is a real risk that they are not being as active in the community and experiencing the benefits that brings.

I am painting a picture of gloom here, but there is some good news. Since about 2005 there has been a significant investment in bus services across Melbourne. The red line on this chart shows you the number of kilometres on the timetable that are in operation — we had a big up-tick from 2006 onwards — and blue bars show you what patronage has done. It very clearly shows that if you provide more service, you certainly carry a lot more people. So there is good news there if we provide public transport.

12 May 2011 Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee 65 The next chart shows some survey data on people who are moving into new homes in the growth areas. They were asked about the importance of proximity to public transport, and you will see an interesting trend from around 2005–06. The number of people who said that proximity to public transport was very important rose quite sharply, and the purple line on this chart shows you that that was when fuel prices went up, so we are now seeing that public transport is a big issue for people.

The next chart shows a problem we are facing at the moment. In the last two state budgets there has been no allocation for increased bus services in Melbourne. We have had some investment, but it is about to level off in real terms, so with the urban growth boundaries expanding there is rapid growth on the urban fringe. There is no money to pay for new bus services to go into these communities, and that is a real issue that we have. There is no automatic process whereby this happens. The growth areas infrastructure charge will eventually make some contribution to that, but bus services are a recurrent expenditure and a one-off payment will only cover so much in bus services.

Between 2007 and early 2010 the entire bus network across Melbourne was reviewed as part of a metropolitan bus service review program, and a number of recommendations were made. I have counted those recommendations and measured how many of them have been acted upon. Whittlesea is actually relatively well off: about half of the recommendations in this area have been implemented. That is a lot better than some other regions. For example, in Knox, Maroondah and the Yarra Ranges only 5 per cent of the recommendations have been implemented. We have a large backlog of improvements that have been identified by working with the community to improve bus services in these growth areas.

Of the recommendations in Whittlesea, the chart on the left shows which have been implemented. Most of the span-of-hours recommendations have been implemented, but only a little over a third of the recommendations to change the route network have been implemented and less than half of the frequency recommendations have been implemented. Across Melbourne, about 20 per cent of recommendations have been implemented, and again, without funding, it is difficult to implement many of these.

Funding is one issue, but the nature of the development in the growth areas is also important. This is the Mernda region. You can see here a housing estate being developed that is completely disconnected from the other urban areas in the growth areas. There is actually a very large school here. It is very difficult to have public transport serving an area like this when there is only a very sparse road network. In fact with the bus route that does come along here, this piece of road here was not built when the bus route came in. The bus had to come in here and then go back, then come in and go back. We have very indirect bus routes; the connecting road network is not there because the nature of the urban development involves leapfrogging. It is not a continuous development. That creates a lot of issues for us.

This is my second-last slide. Our priority for growth areas is obviously to expand the public transport network to keep up with the growing urban areas. We see this as a combination of local services that ensure access to all. They get into the side streets and give people coverage within 400 metres of where they live, but we also need some rapid transit services that provide fast, rapid, frequent services that are competitive with a car. That will help deal with some of the congestion issues we are experiencing even out here on the fringe.

The CHAIR — I would just like to interrupt at that point. What is your definition of rapid transit services?

Mr LOADER — Traditionally rapid transit services are things like trains or light rail. I will talk in a moment about bus rapid transit, which is a much cheaper version of rapid transit where we could have higher speeds. I will come to that in a moment if you can bear with me.

We need to ensure that the road networks are connected early in development. Leapfrog development is going to be an issue. Obviously developers have their own priorities about when they want to develop land. I am not sure what the answers are there, but it is something we need to think about. We also need to ensure that there is coordination between services and that we do not have buses running every 30 minutes trying to connect with trains running every 20 minutes. You cannot make that work. We have to get that coordination happening. When we upgrade train frequencies, we need to be doing the buses at the same time.

To come back to your question, we see bus rapid transit as a low-cost solution for the growth areas. You may be a familiar with a proposal from the previous government for a busway to Mernda. What we are talking about is a roadway that is dedicated to buses and buses only so that they are not caught in congestion. You would have

12 May 2011 Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee 66 relatively larger stop spacing so that the buses move quickly between those places, and where they cross the road network you would have traffic signal priority so that the bus does not have to wait for traffic. You would have a public transport system where you only have to wait for passengers, and that is probably as fast as you could hope for it to operate.

We have identified a couple of options in the northern growth areas. Aitken Boulevard through the city of Hume is a nice wide corridor: we could put a busway in there, in the median of that roadway, to provide a fast service. At Epping North there is a rail reservation through that corridor. It is probably very unlikely that rail will be built there within even 10 to 20 years time. We could use that corridor with a strip of bitumen and run buses at a high frequency there. Mernda is another option, through the train corridor, which again is a project that is currently under review. We are talking about it being maybe 10 times cheaper than heavy rail to put this service in. It can run just as frequently as the rail, and we can do it much quicker and much sooner. Obviously there is lots of pressure on infrastructure spending. I hope that presentation prompts some thought. I am more than happy to provide further information should you require it.

The CHAIR — Thank you very much, Mr Loader. Make yourself comfortable back at the table. I certainly appreciate the quality of this presentation today, especially with all of the maps and statistics and the way things are laid out for us. That is a very valuable instrument for us. Thank you very much for the focus. There was one study that was done by a university — I am just trying to get to that point — —

Mr LOADER — The VAMPIRE index was — —

The CHAIR — The VAMPIRE index, yes. That certainly resonates, that term!

Mr LOADER — That was Griffith University. Jago Dodson and Neil Sipe were the authors of that paper.

The CHAIR — Jago Dodson — —

Mr LOADER — Yes, and Neil Sipe.

The CHAIR — Thank you very much. If you were given unlimited resources to improve liveability in Melbourne’s outer suburban areas what would be the first three things you would focus on? Either of you to answer.

Mr LOADER — From the transport perspective?

The CHAIR — No, the first three things for liveability in the outer suburbs.

Mr LOADER — That is a very broad question to be put on the spot to answer. Certainly from my area of expertise I think having access to services, to employment, to recreation and to education is extremely important for people wherever they live. Having that transport access is very important. Public transport provides a universal means of access to almost everybody at a reasonable price. It insulates them from the impacts of rising petrol prices. I think having a solid transport network that enables people to move around and be socially included would have to be in my top three.

The CHAIR — Thank you very much for that. I am going to invite our Deputy Chair to put a question to you.

Ms GRALEY — I know, Chris, from experience how a big difference has been made in my own electorate by the increase in span and frequency of the bus services in recent years; it has really been quite phenomenal. I know the residents are really taking advantage of that, so it is great. We are talking about some new suburbs being developed, and I wondered what sort of consultation happens between your organisations and the developers when developing new estates regarding the development of adequate public transport. Have you any suggestions about how the provision of public transportation services to the new estates could be improved and facilitated in the future going forward, especially given the forward estimates?

Mr DEACON — Yes, true. In answer to the first part of the question, basically the Department of Transport is the governing body in respect of public transport. As operators we speak with the Department of Transport, and the Department of Transport speaks with the land developers. As far as coordination is concerned, that would be far grander. In regard to width of roads, et cetera, access similar to the leapfrogging that Chris has just

12 May 2011 Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee 67 referred to, I can speak specifically on the expansion of Plenty Road in the Mernda district. They are all different developers, so therefore it is not necessarily coordinated in that regard in the first instance. So that is where greater focus needs to be centred.

Ms GRALEY — Yes. From my experience I have known one developer to have an entrance and exit on a different side from another developer, so it would be a big issue.

Mr DEACON — Sorry, what was the last part of that question?

Ms GRALEY — About how you see public transport being provided to the new estates in the future; what recommendations you would make on how that could be improved or facilitated.

Mr DEACON — We are in consultation, as we speak, with the Department of Public Transport. The restriction is in the funds. Pardon the pun, but there is a bit of a broken record in this regard. Here we are in a very large growth area. I understand the city of Whittlesea is the second-fastest growing municipality in Australia. What Chris put up there before in respect of the holding of funds going forward, that is where the restriction starts. So as far as making things happen, we are hitting our heads pretty much against a brick wall.

Mr LOADER — If I could comment, I would suggest we need to have a plan. In the growth areas where we are having urban development we need to have a plan that works in parallel and delivers in parallel on public transport. There is a risk that if you provide public transport very late in the piece, well after people have moved in, they will be buying their second, third or fourth household cars, and then when you do have public transport it will be harder to compete, so the efficiency of the public transport will not be as high. Early provision of public transport is a critical issue. Obviously early in the piece you will not be carrying as many passengers, but you will be helping to develop habits and certainly helping people who move in to have that public transport option from day one, not from day 400.

The CHAIR — You make a very interesting point in terms of the notion of developing habits and having confidence in the system early on. Thank you very much for that point.

Ms McLEISH — Thanks for your presentation. One of the things that probably I have not heard much of today — only one person has mentioned it — is about the cross-connectivity. When we are looking at transport services it all seems to be funnelling to certain points, and no-one is really mentioning going across. As I look at the map that is up on the screen at the moment I recall that we talked earlier about development in South Morang, Whittlesea being a job hub, so to speak, and also Epping. What are your thoughts about the sort of cross-linking transport?

Mr LOADER — That is absolutely an issue. Radial travel into Melbourne is one corridor, but most people in the outer suburbs are working in the outer suburbs, and providing those cross-linkages is very important. An excellent example of that — unfortunately, not in this area — is the South Dandenong industrial area. There are approximately 30 000 jobs in that area, and a large part of the workforce comes from Casey, which is to the east. There are no east–west bus routes that connect Casey with the South Dandenong jobs area. Similarly with Epping, getting people to that employment area is very important. Not everyone will have a direct bus route, but having a bus route through there is important.

The recent introduction of the 901 SmartBus will certainly assist access into some of that employment area.

Ms McLEISH — I am just following from that: with you looking at the bus rapid transit plan, is that something that you are considering crossways as well as radially?

Mr LOADER — I think that could certainly be part of it. In this particular example we have suggested there might be a link across to Craigieburn and the Somerton corridor. There is employment there as well. So you could provide those cross-linkages for people to access employment, absolutely.

The CHAIR — Before we put another question, I just want to acknowledge that we have been joined by the member for Yan Yean, Danielle Green. Welcome.

Mr ONDARCHIE — We talked about leapfrogging and new developers, and said that none of the developers do it the same way.

12 May 2011 Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee 68 Mr DEACON — Correct.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Do you ever have any trouble with your fleet getting access into some of those new estates?

Mr DEACON — Yes, definitely. I referred earlier to the width of the roads as well as the through routing. As you can see in one of Chris’s slides, the road was not built so basically the bus route was one entry in and another entry out, and there are multiple examples of that in the corridor. Obviously it is preferable to have a good bus route that has an origin and a destination. But at the same time there could be a catchment either side, as one of Chris’s slides reflected — the one showing the 400-metre bus area in grey. Perhaps we could go back to that.

It is quite obvious from that that the known growth is happening and building the road first, similar to what Chris has said just now, means one is capable of taking the bus, therefore giving the new homeowner the confidence to move into their house with one car and avoid the second car being purchased, because once the second car is purchased it is back to that fact of making that decision. While the second car is in the driveway, it is going to be used.

Mr LOADER — Might I add that directness is very important for people who catch buses, because it is the effective travel speed for you, and when you do not have the connector roads, the bus routes invariably become indirect and less attractive in that sense — and less efficient.

Mr DEACON — So in that regard the road system is a major part, obviously, and speaking of bus ways and that type of format, we are advocates of that.

The CHAIR — I am aware of a municipality where a community bus service is provided by the council. Is there any dialogue along those lines? I know it is not in your commercial interest, but is that out there in the ether for consideration by this municipality?

Mr LOADER — Most councils do have community transport services. There is often an eligibility criteria to use those services, and they are often people who require additional assistance to use transport. We see public transport as a service — —

The CHAIR — No, I mean over and above that. Manningham is the model I am thinking of there. It is not a qualification.

Mr LOADER — Sorry, I need to understand your question.

The CHAIR — I am interested to know whether you are aware of the model in Manningham, perhaps, not just the community bus service that we understand and would have conditions for people to be able to use it, but there is another one that is actually provided by the council. It would be almost a competition, but it runs through the day.

Mr LOADER — Are you referring to the Manningham Mover?

The CHAIR — Yes.

Mr LOADER — That is a public transport service that operates through the Manningham region and provides a loop service through there. It has a limited span of hours. I am aware of that.

The CHAIR — But would that model help in these estates?

Mr LOADER — There are principles for designing effective public transport networks, and what makes a public transport route work is that it has got lots of destinations and it takes people where they need to go. I think you need to look at each area to determine the best public transport network design that is going to service that area.

Ms HUTCHINS — I was going to ask whether either Dyson’s or BusVic had looked at the concept or in fact implemented the concept anywhere of park and drive, where people go to a point and there is an express sort of bus that would take them to a working hub?

12 May 2011 Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee 69 Mr LOADER — Melbourne actually has two bus park-and-ride locations. One is at North Altona and one that is more successful is the Doncaster park-and-ride on the Eastern Freeway. There are 400 car parking spaces there. They fill up very early in the morning. Certainly that has been very effective. My judgement would be that park-and-ride works well where people only need one more form of transport. I think people who were travelling to the city, for example, would prefer to park at a train station and then they have a direct trip into the city.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Lance, over the last couple of years we have seen the development of bus stops on the carriageway as opposed to on the side.

Mr DEACON — Yes.

Mr ONDARCHIE — How is that working for you?

Mr DEACON — Excellently. That is the SmartBus innovation, and basically the variance, specifically, if you put your feet in the shoes of the driver, is that he is already on the carriageway versus once upon a time it was an indentation taking you off the carriageway and therefore you have to re-enter. With today’s hustle and bustle, it is very hard to get back out on it. So the answer to the question is that it is very successful.

The CHAIR — Is that working in terms of timeliness to arrive at the next stop?

Mr DEACON — Yes, and that is what Orbital — the SmartBus operation is all about: being very quick, similar to the bus rapid transit-type configuration, in moving from one bus stop to the next bus stop very quickly, where the only time factor should be passenger on, passenger off.

Mr ONDARCHIE — Does it make any difference in terms of meeting your timetables?

Mr DEACON — Yes, in one regard. Then on the flip side, in answering that question, is that the congestion that we are experienced with in the car — we are gaining time it in one sense but in the next sense, a situation when there is not bus priority, we become part of the traffic. So that is something that we are in consultation with the Department of Transport on. It is a long way off.

The CHAIR — Gentlemen, I think we are able to conclude our interface with you today, and I have to say, again, it has been very informative. The presentation was really a wake-up call: you have made some really profound points that resonated with me and perhaps with other members of the committee. So thank you very much for the comprehensive and very focused presentation of some important facts and statistics, for the way in which they have been presented and for the quality of your responses, as well as for your enthusiasm and attendance today. We value your time. We did go over time with some of our schedules, but it is hard not to do that sometimes because the issues that we are addressing are so important. Thank you very much for making a contribution today.

Mr LOADER — Thank you for the opportunity.

Mr DEACON — Thank you very much.

Committee adjourned.

12 May 2011 Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee 70