MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1589628728 · doi:10.25916/sut.26262749

Political factors in the rebuilding of mass transit: an investigation of failure in Melbourne since 1970 through comparisons with Perth and Vancouver

2008· article· en· W1589628728 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Stone

Bibliographic record

VenueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPer capitaLegitimacyGovernment (linguistics)Political sciencePublic administrationRegional sciencePublic economicsSociologyEconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology)Same topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207