Political factors in the rebuilding of mass transit: an investigation of failure in Melbourne since 1970 through comparisons with Perth and Vancouver
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it