Readers may recall those Community Yarns events in 2019. During a discussion at one of those meetings I asked about the relationship between Council and Metro Tasmania. The alderman leading my group did not react well, quickly moving the discussion on. What’s going on? Just how bad or unproductive is the relationship between Council and Metro Tasmania? And why?
This is no small matter. Glenorchy is a city in which it is virtually impossible to live a full and active life without independent transport. Inadequate public transport forces many to spend limited incomes on a vehicle when they would prefer to use public transport. Those without their own vehicle have great difficulty getting around, particularly at weekends and outside normal working hours.
As the Hobart City Deal neared finalisation last November, four councils — Glenorchy, Clarence, Hobart and Kingborough — quietly made a joint public transport submission to the State government budget process. Read that submission. It very politely asks (without any obvious sense of urgency) the State Government to take three key action:
- Increase government spending on public transport services so Tasmania no longer has the lowest per capita expenditure in the nation, and we can achieve our aims of reducing congestion and increasing the use of public transport; and
- Establish a Public Transport Authority, to enable the development of coordinated, strategic public transport policy and provide support to Metro Tasmania and other contractors to increase the frequency, reliability, affordability and accessibility of buses; and
- Clarify responsibility, and increase funding, for bus shelters to help encourage people into public transport and ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 by the deadline of 2022.
The submission calls for actions that would be dramatic and far-reaching in their effect. For example, Tasmania’s per capita spending on public transport is so low that even if it was doubled, we would still only come fifth amongst the states (ahead only of South Australia). Yes, it’s that low.
The only visible attempt to garner public support for the submission was a Bus Challenge by the mayors of Hobart and Glenorchy in February 2020. This was seen by many of the public as a month-long photo opportunity. In the post-challenge breakfast radio interview on March 5, it was revealed that in the entire month of February Kristie Johnston (Glenorchy) caught 11 buses and Anna Reynolds (Hobart) 26. Nothing was said in that interview about its true purpose.
And the public have heard absolutely nothing about bus services since, apart from Kingborough negotiating directly with the state government to come up with $3.5 million to improve bus services in their Kingborough City Deal.
Council’s half-hearted approach to the submission provides no hope to actual or potential bus travellers for any service improvement. Let us see if Council’s direct interactions with Metro provides any encouragement.
Metro is a state-owned company that delivers services under passenger transport service contracts with the Department of State Growth. Council and Metro have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which sets out how Council and Metro will work together to deliver bus services to the community. It sets out the commitment of each party, but Council regards it as an internal document that it will not release publicly. The MOU sets out the roles and responsibilities of each party but does not create any enforceable rights.
Council claims it works with Metro in providing infrastructure that supports bus services, including bus stop infrastructure (shelters, seating etc.), footpath and crossings to support access to stops, and managing other traffic and road related issues. But the submission mentioned above says “there is currently no clear responsibility for providing and managing bus stops and shelters.”
Council has quarterly meetings with Metro to discuss matters relating to public transport. What matters?
When asked, Council did not mention any written policy or guidelines that guide its decision-making regarding public transport. It seems Council has no view on the bus services it wishes to see operating in its city – coverage, timing, frequency etc. This should not surprise since Council has never directly asked residents what public transport they want (not even at a fundamental level whether, for example, they want light rail). If Metro were to ask Council for guidance, Council could not meaningfully respond.
Research has revealed that I was not entirely correct. On the front page of the October 2012 Glenorchy Gazette we read about the submission made by the Glenorchy City Council to the Legislative Council Government Administration Committee Inquiry on Integrated Transport Options in Southern Tasmania, July 2012. We read in the gazette that
“Glenorchy City Council initiated its own community survey on Metro Tasmania services and one of the key findings was that 44.7 percent currently use the service and 61.4 percent indicated their desire to use the service more often if improvements, such as increased frequency and accessibility, were made.”
The submission provides details of the questions asked in the survey and a summary of the statistics.
Council currently says it refers major developments to Metro seeking comments on planning applications. Planning Scheme amendments that propose to re-zone large areas of land for residential use, or have potential impacts on the transport network, are also referred to Metro.
According to Metro, the MOU requests council to consult with Metro in the planning phase of new subdivisions such as Whitestone Point. Metro responds with advice as to any requirements regarding access for buses. Metro points out the major considerations as:
- Provision of a through-route rather than a single entrance which would require a bus to turn around and ‘back-track’;
- Sufficient width of roads to permit the safe passage of buses having regard to on-street parking;
- Road-base to a standard that can accommodate heavy vehicle traffic – without this, Metro’s vehicles would tear ‘light-vehicle’ road base to pieces within a year of operation;
- Provision of adequate pull-over and bus-stop space which must comply with the Disability and Discrimination legislation which limits the gradient on which a bus stop may be placed, and requires footpath, kerb and guttering.
None are relevant unless a bus route is planned for the subdivision or the subdivision affects an existing route. Metro clearly does not see potential needs for changes to route or timetabling.
Metro says it is happy to provide on-site guidance where developers choose to engage directly. In general, the additional costs associated with providing adequate infrastructure for Metro buses mean that developers often choose to not engage, thus precluding the entry of buses to their developments. However some developers have engaged with Metro and successfully extended services into their developments – an excellent example of this is on Oceana Drive (Tranmere) where the developer funded new terminus infrastructure, including a drivers’ toilet.
Planning Scheme Amendments that propose to re-zone large areas of land for residential use, or have potential impacts on the transport network, are also referred to Metro.
Finally, it might be argued that the rules under which Metro operates make Council advocacy for service changes a waste of effort. For example, Metro’s own Urban Bus Service Guidelines have as a prime objective to be “cost effective and best matched to the transport needs of the wider community within the available budget”.
Clearly Metro’s contract provides very little financial room to move; simply asking Metro to improve or change services is pointless. But Council could at least attempt to persuade major developers to discuss options with Metro. Surely the 213-residence Whitestone Point subdivision (June 2018 Planning Authority) could have justified taking that additional step.
Somewhat ironically, Errol Stewart, one of the developers, was quoted by the Glenorchy Gazette as saying:
“The site is serviced by a direct bus line to the city centre, intersected by the cycleway and is right on the doorstep of a proposed future inner-city train station, all features which will make commuting a breeze for residents regardless of their preferred mode of transport.”
https://www.glenorchygazette.com.au/helping-hobarts-housing-supply (7 August 2019)
Perhaps nothing I’ve written matters. Council has demonstrated repeatedly that it is putting all its public transport eggs in the light rail basket.
In today’s Mercury (30/8/2020) we read that “Sorell Mayor Kerry Vincent … and Clarence Mayor Doug Chipman had recently met with Infrastructure and Transport Minister Michael Ferguson to push the case for express bus services from Sorell to the city.” Other councils are taking a rather more pragmatic approach.
Refs
Metro Tasmania Fares Order 2016
Metro Tasmania submission to Select Committee on Greater Hobart Traffic Congestion, September 2019.
Metro Tasmania submission to Review of Tasmania’s Local Government Legislation, February 2019.
Glenorchy City Council submission to the Legislative Council Government Administration Committee Inquiry on Integrated Transport Options in Southern Tasmania, July 2012.
Glenorchy City Observer 