Lonie Report

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Victorian Transport Study, better known as the Lonie Report, was an extensive study of freight and passenger transport within the state of

Government of Victoria
, and the report was published on 26 September 1980.

Murray Lonie, a retired executive of General Motors and BHP, was appointed to head the study, and the secretary was the head of the Country Roads Board, Robin Underwood.

Scope and aims

In the words of the authors the Lonie Report aimed to:

institute a study into all freight and passenger transport within Victoria, and to and from Victoria, in order to produce a co-ordinated transport system capable of meeting the needs of all residents of Victoria, having particular regard to the effect of transport on the balanced development of the State.

To some extent, the Lonie Report followed on from the

grain
.

Study and recommendations

Between June and December 1979, 41 individuals, 21 government agencies, and 28 of the (then) 211 Victorian

lobby groups
representing various positions on the question of transport planning.

The writing of the report was done between December 1979 and its final publication in September 1980. It was presented to Transport Minister Rob Maclellan, and was released as a total of twenty-five volumes and a final report, containing recommendations on every topic covered.

The Lonie Report argued that, despite the immense change in demand for various modes of transport since the beginning of the twentieth century, the system was still run by the same methods as prevailed in the nineteenth century. It argued for large-scale

fertilisers
and grain.

The report was particularly concerned about the operating

car
ownership. The report argued that it would be much too expensive to upgrade the rail system to be competitive with the car, or even with buses, and therefore:

The report stated that because of increasing demand, Victoria's major

Eastern and South Eastern Freeways, for the linking of the West Gate Freeway to Port Melbourne, and for the building of a ring road around the city, claiming that those increases in road capacity were needed to meet the predicted demand for road transport. It also advocated a road bypass of Lilydale on the Maroondah Highway, and argued for the introduction of clearways
on main suburban streets to speed up road traffic.

Another recommendation of the report was the staggering of school and work hours to spread out the demand on public transport services, which it said would reduce the overcrowding on those services during peak periods, and the number of under-used services at other times. The report argued that be done through employers being encouraged by government to develop more flexible hours.

Influence

The release of the Lonie Report by the government of

New Deal for Country Passengers, a plan for the reorganisation and revitalisation of country passenger rail services, was unveiled in February 1981.[2]

The following country passenger rail lines were closed:[3]

Some of those lines remained open for freight. Passenger services to Cobram, Stony Point and Leongatha were reinstated by the incoming

heritage railway. The Cobram and Leongatha passenger services were closed again by the Kennett Government
.

The Hamer Government's plans to close several suburban rail lines were halted because of strong protests. However, the St. Kilda and Port Melbourne lines were converted to light rail a few years later. Late-night services on the Upfield Line were eliminated (they were restored in 1997) and a multimodal fare system was introduced that, unpredicted by the Report, boosted patronage to such an extent that historians [who?] believe it has been responsible for the survival of the system.[citation needed]

Despite those changes, the Lonie Report proved very influential in transport planning, especially after the election of

Mulgrave Freeway.[citation needed
]

Criticism

The Lonie Report has been firmly criticised ever since it was released. Professional transport planners have generally believed that it only considered direct financial cost in making its recommendations.[citation needed] It has also been criticised for not fully considering how building additional road capacity affects people's decisions about whether to use cars or public transport, inducing demand for even more major road construction, thereby negating any benefit from building the road in the first place. The Public Transport Users Association argued that the report did not consider that further public transport service reductions would cause a vicious circle of greater declines in patronage, poorer cost recovery and even larger deficits.

The fact that the Lonie Report was written by people with a vested interest in increasing road transport has also led transport academics to question its assumptions and conclusions. The 1991 Russell Report, written by Professor Bill Russell, claimed that the benefits of freeway building, which had been propagated by governments before and since the Lonie Report, were overstated.

Indeed, the Lonie Report could be seen as evidence for the relatively recent claims by academic Guy Pearse that car, mineral and fossil fuel lobby groups have long written government policy on energy and transport in Australia (see Greenhouse Mafia).

Perhaps more potent than criticisms based upon supposed involvement of vested interests, the Lonie Report had, as an underlying assumption, falling levels of public transport patronage. It failed to foresee Melbourne's rapid population growth, due to immigration, and increasing population density.

The Lonie Report noted the rapidly increasing levels of government subsidy to public transport. According to the report, at the time, cost recovery through fares was 53% for the Melbourne & Metropolitan Tramways Board and 49% for VicRail, both of which would now be considered high rates of cost recovery. Increasing subsidy levels are a trend that has continued in more recent years, albeit one apparently acceptable to government as a means of encouraging people to shift to public transport. The Lonie Report seems to have been predicated upon a view that high levels of subsidy would be unacceptable to government and voters alike, which has not proven to be the case.

See also


References

  1. ^ a b Lonie, Murray (1980), Victorian Transport Study: Report on Metropolitan Rail Transport (PDF), Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer, p. 81
  2. OCLC 19676396
    .
  3. OCLC 19676396
    .

Further reading

  • Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Engineers; The Lonie Report in Brief; published 1980 by the Victorian Division.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lonie_Report&oldid=1187571028"