The politics of SRL

Concept art of an SRL train (via Big Build)

In Part 1, we looked at what the Parliamentary Budget Office actually says about the costs of building SRL, and why the media narrative has gotten this wrong. In Part 2 I want to talk more broadly about the politics and messaging of SRL. 

There have been continued discussions about whether the timing is right for SRL - the planning process was wrong, it's too early, there are higher priorities, etc - and whether it should be supported - now, or ever. I think this is to some extent a good debate to have, but so often the armchair-quarterbacking of "what I would do if I were in charge" fails to take into account the political forces at play in the real world. So I want to explore some of those forces today, to better inform those debates. 

My honest opinion is that SRL, while a great and visionary project, is not quite the highest priority right now - if I had my way, I'd get them started on Melbourne Metro 2 as soon as possible, shifting the staff involved in different phases (planning, tunnelling, station fitout, etc) over from MM1 as soon as their bit was done. I'd then shift those same staff over to SRL as soon as their bit of MM2 was finished; in the meantime, SRLA could work through more of the planning issues with the relevant stakeholders, get the designs really right, before starting major construction around 2030. 

Diagram of the proposed Melbourne Metro 2 tunnel (via IV)

The problem with this is, I'm not going to get my way. I'm not going to suddenly be appointed king, and be able to pull the levers of power with that level of finesse - no random person on Twitter is. Realistically, with less than 100 days to go till the 2022 election, there are two options - the Andrews Labor government which builds SRL, or the Guy Coalition opposition which doesn't. (Minority government with a Greens balance of power is of course possible, but doesn't fundamentally change this dynamic for reasons that will become apparent). 

First, a brief diversion into some basic political theory. Most of the electorate is pretty disengaged with politics, most of the time. They've got so much else going on in their lives, and when politics enters their awareness, they are bombarded with so many different messages from so many different campaigners (within and without the political parties) that only a fraction of these messages get through and sink in. The Vomit Principle states that a politician or campaigner needs to repeat a message over and over again, so many times that they feel like vomiting, before it will finally start to get through to a decent chunk of the general public. This doesn't mean the public is dumb, or they'll just believe whatever they hear the most - just that until a message is repeated over and over again, they won't even hear your message. But nonetheless, this is not a fertile environment for nuance - you need a clear, simple message that you can hammer home over and over again, and that will get picked up and amplified by news media looking for a short quote or soundbite. 

Dan Andrews in 2018 (via Nickm57)

The Andrews government has built its image on a track record of "getting stuff done". They promise to build stuff, then they build it; this stands in direct and deliberate contrast to the Liberal party, who lost the 2014 election in no small part because of a perception they sat on their hands and did very little with their time in office. This is Labor's formula for success, and there is no sense that anybody in the party - cabinet members who could be viable alternative premiers, backbenchers, party rank-and-file, anybody - has any appetite to question it. Why would they, when it's working? 

Given that they've delivered on so much else from their infrastructure agenda, and been so good at reinforcing the message that they are doing so, I don't think that delaying SRL a bit would fatally wound this perception - they could certainly get away with it if they wanted to. But they have no real incentive to - they know the project is popular with voters, and that sticking with it is the safer bet. So they're probably not going to pledge to delay it pre-election - and if they win in November, they will effectively have two elections' worth of mandates to proceed with it, so they would of course proceed with it ASAP. 

Matthew Guy (via Liberal Party (Vic Div))

The Guy opposition, on the other hand, has already started its campaign against SRL, using it as a weapon against the Andrews government. Their criticisms started fairly nuanced when they were just flying a kite, before they declared their formal policy position, but "SRL is a fundamentally good project we should build, but we need to delay it for a few years, and when we do, we'll need to manage the costs effectively" is not a message that is conducive to the Vomit Principle. Now that they have declared they'll scrap it, they won't pull any punches - in fact their attacks are likely to escalate and spread beyond SRL itself. 

They've already attacked the price tag, using lines about cost blowouts and debt, and trying to frame the project in direct opposition to investment in healthcare. Transport spokesperson Matthew Bach is calling it "a dog of a project", while Guy has already started saying things like "You can't catch a train to hospital" - which is obviously untrue, but that's not the point. The point is to keep badmouthing the project in as many ways as possible, with short simple attacks, to embed the message of "SRL bad" as deeply as possible into the public consciousness. I would not be at all surprised if this extended to more general attacks on public transport spending before the election is over, or at least nowhere near as much proactive PT pork-barrelling as you'd otherwise expect out of an election campaign. 

Subtle messaging, this ain't. (via Liberal Victoria)

"SRL bad" will be a difficult concept for the Coalition to convince people of; as I said, the public isn't dumb, they already like the project, and they can detect cynical political ploys like pitting health against transport. (Also, "We'll do both" is the obvious retort that Labor wasted no time in making.) But the only way for the Coalition to give themselves a fighting chance will be to go as negative as possible, and stick like glue to that message - so they will. 

So in the unlikely event that they manage to pull it off and win government in November, do you really think they're going to turn around from all that negative rhetoric and build what is very much seen as Dan Andrews' personal legacy project? Even a decade or so later? Their inability to let go of the East West Link, nearly a decade on, suggests not. 

Samantha Ratnam in 2016 (via Takver)

Now, the Greens could potentially try to plot a more nuanced course here - it's what they do, and unfortunately one of the reasons increasing their vote share has been such a long-term project. ("We can have climate action without destroying people's jobs" took decades to get through). They could take a position to the election that they'd build SRL but put other projects first, but let's say they won a position in a Labor minority government - do you really think quibbling over the precise timing of a project they fundamentally supported would be the best use of their political capital? 

The truth is that there are precisely two possible outcomes to the SRL question. Either Labor wins and they build it pretty much straight away, or the Coalition wins and it doesn't get built. I don't see a politically viable scenario where it gets built a little bit later. 

This isn't to say it's a totally binary choice, where no change is possible. But it does narrow the types of changes that are likely. And given that, for many of us, this isn't a debate about whether SRL is a good or bad idea, but more about the way it's being done or whether it will crowd out higher priorities, this leaves some really fruitful questions on the table. 

Concept for a green roof over the Heatherton stabling yard (via City of Kingston)

Could Labor be convinced to make tweaks to the station designs, to improve connectivity? Quite possibly. Could the Coalition be convinced to implement some kind of alternative, like light rail or rapid buses? Maybe, although that'd be a pretty difficult pirouette if their messaging about the need for SRL is too relentlessly negative. Could Labor be forced to add a green roof to the Heatherton stabling yard, as suggested by the EES, or maybe throw in a station instead? If there was enough of a local revolt among voters, sure. Could Labor be convinced to build those other projects like MM2 at the same time as SRL? I really think so. 

This last one is something that a number of commentators disagree with - they say SRL will suck up all the investment for the next several decades, and other projects won't get a look in. Some suggest it'll lock out other big projects like MM2, and we'll only be able to get small projects over the line, while others suggest it'll lock out projects big and small - from MM2 right down to track duplications and signalling upgrades.

First of all - if you want to play the "cut projects to save money for higher priorities" game, why restrict yourself public transport? Why not look to the wider transport budget, and cut wasteful megaroad projects like North East Link, which half a century of megaroad-building has taught us will only induce more people to drive and make traffic worse? The $16.5B for NEL would fund a lot of track duplications. 

But in any case, this "fixed budget" thinking may have been reasonable back in the 1980s, when public transport was fighting for the tiniest scraps of investment, and if one project got up it usually meant everything else got brushed aside (while multiple big road projects proceeded apace, of course). Lots of these commentators were actively involved in the railways at a time of managed decline, and they genuinely did a great job to save as much of the furniture as they did. But it is not the political reality of the 21st century. Despite recent concerns about inflation, governments can still borrow money incredibly cheaply, and they have - on both sides, at both a state and federal level - shown a strong willingness to do so, for public transport as well as roads. Their pockets aren't infinitely deep, but if you can make a strong enough case for why something should be funded and built, they will build it. 

Politicians will spend money on rail in the 21st century (via wongm)

None of this is to say that commentators, armchair urbanists, or grassroots activists shouldn't try to inject a bit of nuance into the debate wherever we can, and make the case for why one project is a higher priority than another. We should always give our honest appraisals without fear or favour - and I of course try to do that on this blog. And I should make clear that the discourse has more room for nuance further away from election time, so I am very much focused on the here and now in this post. 

But grassroots activists are subject to the Vomit Principle just like political parties are - if we want to have a chance of gathering public support and effecting real change, our best bet is to have a big, bold, simple message that will capture the imagination of the public. If you genuinely hate the project and want it stopped, well, go ahead and campaign for that. But if you're not sure about the details, or you have higher priorities, a positive campaign is your best bet. Something like #GreenRoofForHeatherton or #BuildMM2 works, in a way that #SlightlyDelaySRLEvenThoughItsFundamentallyAGoodProject just doesn't. So if you've got a project you think is a higher priority than SRL, pushing a positive campaign for that is a better use of your energy than quibbling over the timing of the centrepiece of the election.