Between 2006 and 2009, over 130 staff working at the newly-finished Southern Cross Station precinct complained that diesel fumes from idling trains were affecting their health (Lucas 2010; 2011). However, the 'cause' of the complaints was rebuffed by a spokesman for the station operator, who cited a lack of evidence and claimed that since 2002, regular air quality testing showed that fumes were well within prescribed safety levels (Lucas 2010). In spite of this, and in an apparent 'U Turn' implied by Lucas (2011), the Victorian State Government (through the Department of Transport) agreed to partially fund a proposal for installing extraction fans to improve air quality at the Station.
This is an example of how unanticipated events (Joyner 2007; Hodge and Greve 2005: p.110) - e.g. unsubstantiated 'facts' - may impact upon operational oversight. It could therefore be perceived (based on the information above) that the Government's decision to intervene was driven by a need to be 'seen to be doing something' so as to avert prolonged negative media attention (Karlsen 2002) over this matter.