The national greenhouse accounts tell me that each kWh of largely brown coal generated electricity in Victoria results in 1.22 kg of CO2. A $26 per tonne tax would cost just over 3 cents per kWh. In our four person household we use around 9 kWh a day, so that works out to $104 a year. We use gas for heating and cooking so there will be an extra cost there, but Tony was talking about electricity bills alone.

But the really interesting bit is to compare that to what we are currently paying. We pay an extra 5c/ kWh to purchase 100% Green power, which is effectively a voluntary carbon tax of $40 per tonne. That means a carbon tax of $40 to $50 per tonne invested in incentives and support for renewables would go a long way in covering the costs of shifting our electricity supply away from brown coal, and leave plenty left over to help reduce the power bills of the less well off. Sounds like a great deal to me.

Jason Dowling’s article on the regional rail link mixes up what is mandatory with what should be reconsidered. Major new public transport infrastructure in the outer west is mandatory. But the way of achieving it should be reconsidered.

The RRL project has many flaws. It’s not going to be an electric suburban service for Tarneit and Derrimut, it won’t connect these suburbs to the Werribee CBD, it will to sever the connection between Geelong and Werribee and make the trip from Geelong to Melbourne 10 minutes longer.

Other options should be assessed. The capacity of the Werribee – Geelong line could be dramatically increased by electrifying the line to Geelong and putting in passing loops for express services between Newport and Footscray. There seems to be a strong case for extra tracks between Footscray and Sunshine, but it’s not logical that these tracks should be used exclusively for regional services – they could allow a large increase in express suburban services and would allow frequent electric services to Melton. Given funding constraints, maybe the rail connection between Werribee and Deer Park should be a second stage project, and in the meantime these new growth areas could be served by a fast frequent Smartbus service connecting to dramatically improved rail services on the existing corridors.

All these options should be on the table in the current review, and expert and community opinion should be sought before they are adopted. Now what a welcome change that would be!

"I'm writing to complain about the proposed timetable changes on the Altona line - its crazy that with almost $100 million spent at laverton station to improve services that the altona line will run at 22 minute frequencies and require passengers to change at newport during the offpeak.

A 22 minute frequency will make it impossible to remember the timetable and goes against all timetabling best practice.

Changing at Newport would be acceptable if the service frequency and speed of service was being increased to compensate - but no - decline in frequency and almost certainly speed of service too.

Similarly people could put up with changing to get to the city loop if the overall jounrney time wasn't extended - but I'm sure this isn't going to be the case. Please go back to the drawing board!"

I'd love you to have a read and let me know what you think. I'm going to be discussing it at a climate strategy roundtable the weekend after next - your feedback before then would be very valuable

It really is a campaign now! Not only have we almost finished setting up the office - we have been promised the phone will be connected on Thursday! - but my first brochure - a letter to residents - is back from the printers and about to hit the streets.

We will be relying on volunteers letterboxing all my material over the next two months, so if you've got any time to spare please drop us a line or give me a ring on 0439 363 846. Or just drop into the campaign office, 57 Irving St Footscray. We are hoping to be open every weekday from 11-4 at least.

Here's the letter - its laid out as it went to the printers so its a bit difficult to read on-line - some bits aren't in the right order and one panel is upside down - but you'll get the gist of it!

Residents who are concerned about trucks have a clear choice at the coming state election.

Vicroads statement last week (The Weekly, 22 September) ‘that ‘suitable alternative routes…[to Moore St and Buckley St]…are not available for the movement of freight vehicles from the Footscray area to the Port of Melbourne’ was crystal clear. It shows that the Labor Government is completely unwilling to consider any further truck bans until the Truck Action Plan and Westlink are built. Both projects are currently unfunded and may be a decade away or more.

My position is equally clear. I am campaigning for immediate night time and weekend trucks bans on Moore St Buckley St, Williamstown Rd, and the residential sections of Geelong Rd and Whitehall Street.

All port related truck traffic should be off these roads and on the Westgate Freeway at night and weekends as of now. It’s a perfectly suitable alternative route. The freeway is not congested at these times. The only reason residents are forced to put up with pollution, noise and health risk of trucks at night time and weekends is so the freight companies don’t have to pay CityLInk tolls.

The longer term solution is building the Westgate on-off ramps, rerouting and upgrading of Paramount Rd and Dempster St further west, and getting at least 40% of port related freight on rail. That’s what I’ll be working for if elected to Parliament in November.

Janet, who is now full time on the Senate election trail, plans to undertake the overwhelming majority of her election campaigning by bike, public transport and walking.

‘Obviously there will be some circumstances when I have to drive – people are often surprised to learn that I do own a car and drive! But they will be the exceptions – when it’s pouring with rain or I have to carry some large equipment", Janet said.

“This week for example I have ridden to Sunshine for a street stall, and to railway stations to hand out fliers with our candidate for Gellibrand Rod Solin. I’ve covered 35 km, and only 6km has been by car. “

"I am keeping a logbook of my travel and will report back to people as the election campaigns progress."

“I challenge other candidates to do the same. Walking, cycling, and catching public transport keep you fit and healthy, are good for the planet and cut the cost of living.”

"Transport is a huge issue in both the state and federal campaigns."

“The rail meltdown this week is stark evidence of the mismanagement of public transport by the Brumby government. It adds to other recent transport stuff ups such as the regional rail link fiasco.”

The Greens would end the failed experiment of privatised public transport and establish an independent transparent authority to run our trains trams and buses."

“We want to see money spent where its needed – on upgrading and expanding our public transport so we can have reliable and safe trains, trams and buses every ten minutes throughout Melbourne.”

“Instead of wasting $5 billion on the Westlink tunnel and freeway we would invest money in efficient and affordable public transport including to the growing outer suburbs to get people out of their cars – and ease congestion that way. “

"This is also a federal election issue. Greens propose that the federal government should fund projects such as a train to the airport, high speed rail from Melbourne to Sydney and freight rail lines and intermodal freight hubs to get trucks off our streets, instead of more freeways and tunnels."

Janet is second on The Greens Senate ticket. The Greens lead senate candidate Dr Richard Di Natale is tipped to become Victoria’s first Greens Senator.

"I’m proud to be a support candidate for Richard in this election. He has an excellent chance of winning and along with Greens Senators from other states, of holding the balance of power in the Senate after the election. Richard too is a keen cyclist – he recently did a tour of regional Victoria by bike and train to talk about health."

Here's the media release that's been issued today

Janet Rice to run for Footscray

First let’s remind ourselves that the go ahead for this road was given by the Premier prior to the Environmental Effects Statement being completed. It highlights that once a road is on the agenda, preordained, not only will nothing stand in the way of it being built, but that the power of the road building industry, feeding and catering as it does to our society’s car dependency, is sufficient to overturn democratic and theoretically objective checks and balances in the system.

The panel report was released in April this year.
The EES and the panel were asked to consider the greenhouse gas implications of building a new freeway. Clearly this is an important consideration at a time when the knowledge of dangerous climate change is well known, when there is acceptance even from the state government of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 60%, by 2050, when the world’s scientists are telling us we need to cut emissions by half by 2020 to have a chance of a safe climate, and head to zero emissions as soon as possible.
Greenhouse gas emissions from transport are 16.5% of Victoria’s emissions. Emissions from cars across Australia went up 25% between 1990 and 2005 and are forecast to rise a further 27% between 2010 and 2020. Emissions from commercial vehicles rose 44% between 1990 and 2005, and are forecast to increase by 27 per cent between 2010 and 2020. These expected rises are even with ‘measures’ such as greater fuel efficiency being taken to try to stem the rise.

The panel acknowledged that the new road will encourage more people to travel by road and to travel further. However, their response to this part of their terms of reference was limited:

We have broader concerns because we don’t think that a project by project approach to greenhouse gas emissions is appropriate with respect to transport infrastructure. Sustainability issues of land use and transport need to be addressed at the broad metropolitan scale. Melbourne @ 5 million and the Victorian Transport Plan recognise sustainability issues. We do not think it is appropriate to single out specific capital works programs for off-setting in the absence of a broader process.

This begs the question of course as to what actual mechanisms are outlined in the Victoria Transport Plan and Melbourne @ 5 million that will actually result in a reduction in emissions. The reality is they just aren’t there. They are paid lip service to, but serious reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from transport is not built into either of these plans.

It is noteworthy that the panel report for the Eastlink (then Scoresby Integrated Transport Corridor) EES said very similar things a decade earlier:

However, these issues are of a much broader regional scale and depend on overall government initiatives if a reduction in Greenhouse gases is to be achieved. The Panel would strongly support such initiatives undertaken by both Commonwealth and Victorian governments and considers that these should be given considerable attention as soon as possible if the objectives of the reduction of Greenhouse gases are to be achieved.

Unfortunately we haven’t seen much progress in giving these initiatives ‘considerable attention’ in the last ten years.

Assessment of what is required has been done. Cutting carbon emissions from transport to the levels needed will require all of extraordinary advances in fuel efficiency, facilitating and providing infrastructure to get people out of their cars and onto public transport, walking and cycling, to get freight onto rail, and a reduction in travel overall.

The critical point overlooked by the panel is of course that if such measures were undertaken effectively and to the levels required to actually reduce emissions, then the rationale for a new freeway is severely reduced.

However, the EES and the panel didn’t seriously consider such issues as travel demand management and serious mode shift. In fact, surprise, surprise the three options considered by the EES all included the freeway. Once again an option of not providing the freeway and dramatically improving public transport access was not seriously addressed.

The arguments around the potential of improved public transport and hence decreasing the need for the road were essentially dismissed by the panel. They stated that the freeway is needed because transport modelling shows that demand will grow even if better public transport is provided, there are no plans to provide new rail services, and there’s no room on the existing roads for express bus services.

What this means in a nutshell is that despite policy frameworks of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, of creating mode shift, when it comes to the pointy end of transport planning this all counts for nought – it’s all determined by the transport models which essentially say the future is going to be the same as the past. These models don’t model the substantial mode shifts that could be possible and desirable by providing extensive high quality public transport, limiting or increasing the costs of road based private and commercial travel, or the mode shifts that are likely due to massive increases in the cost of oil. These scenarios don’t exist in model land.

Paul Mees in his book A Most Public Solution quotes ST Atkins in 1976, and notes that nothing has changed since:

‘ we have a series of excessively complicated and expensive models using unsubstantiated and biased techniques to provide information of dubious accuracy for answering the wrong questions.’