Political Factors in the Rebuilding of Mass Transit: an Investigation of Failure in Melbourne Since 1970 Through Comparisons with Perth and Vancouver
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Political factors in the rebuilding of mass transit: an investigation of failure in Melbourne since 1970 through comparisons with Perth and Vancouver Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy John Stone Institute for Social Research Swinburne University of Technology Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122 Australia May 2008 Declaration This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma, and to the best of my knowledge contains no material previously published or written by any other person except where due reference is given in the text. The text has been editted by David Hudson of the Swinburne Institute for Social Research. This editting has addressed only style and grammar and not the substantive content. John Stone May 2008 This copy is printed on acid-free paper. ii Abstract The starting point for this thesis is the observation that per capita patronage on Melbourne's transit system declined rapidly after 1950 and has remained largely static since 1980. The aim is to understand why this was the case. Using theoretical and empirical work to understand competing transport policy prescriptions and practice in western cities, it is clear that Melbourne’s transit performance is disappointing given city’s extensive rail and tram systems, and is not explained by the physical character of the urban region or by the absence of knowledge of alternative policies. The broad hypothesis in this research is that Melbourne’s transit performance is the result of political contention over transport policies since 1970. To develop an analysis of this political contention, a conceptual model of the processes of ‘challenge and resistance’ surrounding contention over urban transport policy was developed. This was drawn from understandings of the economic power of business in urban politics; the influence of institutional path dependencies and the relative powers of central and local governments; and the nature of policy networks and their resistance to change. The model recognises the importance ‘windows of opportunity’ for change that can occur when the legitimacy of existing urban transport policymakers is publicly challenged, and when this challenge is associated with change in the membership of urban governments and with new opportunities for proponents of alternative transport policies. To determine the validity and relative importance of hypothesised explanations for Melbourne’s transit performance, a comparative analysis was used. Perth and Vancouver were chosen for this analysis because they are similar to Melbourne on a range of relevant variables but show differences in broad approaches to transport and planning policy: differences that explain the variability in transit performance trends and in prospects for future improvement. Economic conditions and patterns of parliamentary representation are similar in the three cities, but the early development of institutions for urban government saw the formation of stronger and more autonomous public authorities in Melbourne in the first half of the 20th century. This history, to some degree, shaped later formulation of transport policies in Melbourne. In Melbourne and Perth, the modern institutional structures for urban government and management of transport systems are similar. Variations in transit performance are best explained by the striking differences in the behaviour of political entrepreneurs, leaders of transit management agencies, and civic action groups before and after the election of reformist governments in the early 1980s. In Vancouver following the defeat of freeway proposals in the early 1970s, politicians and new professional appointees established a progressive planning policy network through decisive action. This network has maintained its influence through decades of conflict and is identified as the key factor in the relatively strong performance of transit in Greater Vancouver. It is based in institutions of local and regional government that exhibit some significant similarities and differences from those in Melbourne. iii Acknowledgements Paul Mees and Terry Burke have been excellent supervisors actively engaged with the content and the process of the research. Thanks are due to all the interviewees who cheerfully dredged their memories and their archives, and to the others, too many to name, who supplied valuable information or support. In Perth, Jan Newman’s campaign scrapbooks were a great resource. Thanks also to Stuart Hicks for his thoughtful reflections on various versions of the manuscript. In Vancouver, Gordon Price and Andrew Jackson introduced me to the city, and Mauro Joao allowed me to experience the pleasures of well-designed high-rise living. At the Swinburne Institute for Social Research, David Hayward, Terry Burke and Kath Hulse have created an environment that encourages work on practical issues and which provides encouragement for those from outside academia. Fellow students, particularly Andrea Sharam, Ron Aspin and Tom Alves helped me unravel and enjoy the PhD process. Grace Lee kept a keen eye on the university accountants. David Hudson’s abhorrence of intellectual cliché has made the final text much more readable. The maps were drawn by Chandra Jayasuriya from the Department of Social and Environmental Enquiry at the University of Melbourne. The research was supported by an ARC APAI scholarship with ‘industry partnerships’ from the Metropolitan Transport Forum; the Cities of Port Phillip, Moreland and Yarra; and the Australian Institute for Urban Studies. Thanks to Sigmund Jorgensen, Andrew Korr, Bronwen Machin, Richard Smithers, Jane Homewood, Lester Townsend and Geoff Baker. Timely completion of the thesis was made possible through the support of Nicholas Low and the GAMUT Centre at the University of Melbourne. Thanks to Ann and Bruce McGregor, Margo Sietsma, and Libby Smith and John Middleton for their various writing retreats. Thanks to Bruce Stone for his encouragement, even though this is a ‘non-scientific’ enquiry. Finally, and specially, thanks to Linda Parlane for many things, not least her constant support over the past five years and the calibrated celebrations of progress. iv Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 Explanatory model and hypothesis....................................................................... 3 Research methodology and outcomes................................................................... 5 2. Transit use in Melbourne and the international urban transport debate................................................................................... 9 The decline and stagnation of transit use in Melbourne................................... 10 Current understandings of the reasons for Melbourne’s transit performance .......................................................................................................... 15 The content of policy debates on urban transport problems............................ 17 Changing theory and practice in urban and transport planning..................... 22 Transport and related urban-planning debates in Melbourne ........................ 29 Formulating the research question ..................................................................... 33 3. Challenge and resistance: a model for policy change..................... 35 How cities are governed: structure, agency and power – regime theory and its critics ......................................................................................................... 36 Pluralist debates .............................................................................................36 Economic determinism and urban politics.....................................................37 Urban regime theory ......................................................................................42 Regime challenge and change........................................................................45 International use of urban regime theory .......................................................49 Regime theory: typology or analytic tool?.....................................................51 Critiques of regime theory .............................................................................52 Understanding resistance to change: policy networks, institutions and path dependence ................................................................................................... 55 Policy networks..............................................................................................55 Institutionalists and other contemporary views of the policy process ...........59 Path dependence.............................................................................................62 Studying political influences on transport and urban planning practice........ 64 Analysis of policy discourse and path dependence........................................65 Case studies and theorising largely based on personal experience................66 Comparative studies.......................................................................................70 ‘Challenge and resistance’: a conceptual model for investigating transport policy change........................................................................................ 74 Explaining Melbourne’s transport outcomes using the ‘challenge and resistance’ model................................................................................................... 77 v 4..................................................Choosing