Just what our ailing public transport needs

beatriz

About: "Just what our ailing public transport needs", The Age, March 5, 2006
As this article may soon be taken off the Internet (read below), I have taken the liberty to copy it for discussion. This is an important topic that should be at the top of any development and environmental agenda.

Personally I agree with Bernie Carolan and Paul Mees that a free public transport system will not rectify the many problems with public transport. It can only bring disillusion to those promoting this idea and set the agenda further back when (not if) unsuccessful.

Public transport is extremely expensive, more if compared to the European public transport delivering the services under much higher petrol costs conditions. I see the need to reduce the ticket price and even to further reduce the cost for students, and also (equally, if not more importantly) increase the reliability and frequency of the service. On purely economic terms, it is for me the same or cheaper to drive than to take public transport: 20 minutes by car, 1hour on public transport - if I am lucky and the train does not stop for 10 minutes in Richmond somewhere. However, if “time is money” - in economic terms - it is then clearly more expensive to travel by public transport, as I “waste” 50 minutes each way.

While it is all right for people living in the city to insist that we all should opt for public transport alternatives, these do not represent real alternatives for people living in the suburbs. The transport options are nowhere near those enjoyed by “developed” countries in Europe and in some countries in Asia and South America, where the frequency and quality is such that no time-tables are required and driving becomes an unwise option. Note that I am referring to high standard public transport systems in those continents. Options for cities of similar population to that of Melbourne are many and include: buses, mini-buses, metro (underground) and taxis, many cities also have trams.
(To find more about Metro, the news item on transport called: Metro Arts and Architecture: why doesn't Australia have one? )


What do you think: should public transport be free until is up and running? Is the cost the only problem? Should we discuss this issue in one of our monthly discussions at bldg.50? What about a serious and responsible political agenda that recognises the gravity of our environmental impact, and puts in place a truly substantial public transport program, not for 2030, but now.

Just what our ailing public transport needs
March 5, 2006

It's a rare issue that can unite transport bureaucrats and public transport advocates, but a call for free travel on Melbourne's rail, tram and bus systems has done it. The idea is not new - Robert Maclellan, a minister in the Hamer and Kennett governments, has twice floated the idea - but it has been raised again by a Monash University academic, Frank Fisher. Associate Professor Fisher argues that making public transport free would be the best way of encouraging more people to use it, and therefore of reducing congestion on Melbourne's increasingly car-clogged roads, too.

His colleague at Monash, Professor Graham Currie, concedes that free travel could boost patronage on public transport by up to 30 per cent, but doubts that this would greatly reduce traffic congestion because public transport's share of all travel would still only rise by 1 per cent. Bernie Carolan, chief executive of the Metlink ticketing system, believes that the key to making public transport more attractive is making services more frequent and reliable, not making them free. And, long-time public transport advocate Paul Mees objects that a free system would be inequitable. According to Professor Mees, it would chiefly benefit residents of areas that are already well-serviced by public transport, whereas people who live in the poorly serviced, less affluent outer suburbs would gain little.

All three men make reasonable points, based on the existing defects in Melbourne's transport system. The outer suburbs are badly serviced by trains and connecting buses, making people dependent on cars and the ever-expanding freeway network. The privatisation of rail and tram services has been a costly mistake, with a single rail operator and a single tram operator each dependent on substantial public subsidies. Rail services, in particular, are still subject to too many delays and cancellations, and a reluctance to replenish rolling stock. The Sunday Age believes that until rail and tram services are restored to public ownership, these problems are unlikely to be resolved.

But what such considerations show is not that a free public transport system is unfeasible or irresponsible. Instead they are a reminder that any solution to Melbourne's transport woes must be based on an integral strategy for the metropolitan region, one that extends access to public transport and makes it attractive to use. Under such a strategy, abolition of passenger charges need not have the consequences that its critics fear. On the contrary, it would create the context in which Associate Professor Fisher's predictions could be fulfilled.

Would a free system be affordable? The $380 million required could be raised in several ways: by a London-type congestion tax on cars entering the CBD; by a Medicare-style national levy, as proposed by Associate Professor Fisher; or by a rate levied on households and businesses, as Mr Maclellan suggested, with rebates for concession-card holders and tax deductibility for businesses. Or some combination of these measures. The introduction of free public transport would be a bold move, requiring careful planning. Boldness will be required, however, if Melburnians are to be given real incentives to leave their cars at home, and travel by train, tram or bus instead.


source: The Age, Editorial, March 5, 2006, http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/just-what-our-ailing-public-transport-needs/2006/03/04/1141191883530.html

find more:

While ruling out free public transport, Mr Kennett said the simplicity of the idea was attractive and that he pushed for the single coin system. He said his decision not to push harder for the plan was a mistake.

"Jeff's gut-driven transport solution: My biggest regret in public life is I didn't stick to that gut feeling of what was good for the system," he said." http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/jeffs-gutdriven-transport-solution/2006/03/04/1141191889576.html

"THE CASE FOR By ELLIOT FISHMAN, March 12, 2006
A ticketless public transport system would still require payment - just not at the point of access. The cost would be covered by a levy, in the same way Medicare pays for our health costs." http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-case-for/2006/03/11/1141701737232.html

Anonymous

Beatriz says, "On purely economic terms, it is for me the same or cheaper to drive than to take public transport: 20 minutes by car, 1hour on public transport - if I am lucky and the train does not stop for 10 minutes in Richmond somewhere. However, if “time is money” - in economic terms - it is then clearly more expensive to travel by public transport, as I “waste” 50 minutes each way. "

It may we worth also considering the costs of running a car, for example, the cost of rego, insurance, depreciation, garaging, taxes for roads and accidents, the lost income if we put all the money we spend on our car in an investment account, etc. For more, visit our understandascope blog at www.understandascope.com

David

beatriz

Anonymous wrote:

It may we worth also considering the costs of running a car, for example, the cost of rego, insurance, depreciation, garaging, taxes for roads and accidents, the lost income if we put all the money we spend on our car in an investment account, etc. For more, visit our understandascope blog at www.understandascope.com
David

You are right David, those hidden costs are important, nevertheless we could argue that 50 minutes each way “lost time”, converted to income may cover for that – I am not sure as to whether the line could be drawn in regards to levels of income and affordability of public transport (PT). There is a degree of individual responsibility in all this, however we should be mindful that PT users are faced with uneven quality of service across the city, in some areas with no service at all. Given this, should we demand the same degree of action and commitment from all users independently of where they are commuting? As an example and you may well know this, waiting time for buses from Knox are varied and it could take up to 80 minutes, no service on Sundays (taken from their own brochure). This is similar for most new fringe developments; Flagstaff station is closed on Sunday and holidays – what sort of city is this?

My point here is that, given the appalling service and the possible benefits that good public transport could bring in regards to the reduction of greenhouse gases and health, perhaps our efforts should be directed towards government action – the government should be leading in improving, extending and promoting public transport (in that order).

Great website: www.understandascope.com
Please feel free to publish announcements at arch-peace website

beatriz

Isn't it time our politicians became serious about this serious problem?

"This statement has missed a golden opportunity to balance decades of pro-roads bias," said Louise Sale, the organisation's transport campaigner.
"If the Government is serious about tackling the growing problems of climate change, traffic congestion and rising petrol prices then it has to tempt people out of their cars … expanding freeways and even increased bus funding simply won't achieve this," she said.

Is $10.5bn enough to cure our traffic congestion?, The Age, http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/is-105bn-enough-to-cure-our-traffic-congestion/2006/05/17/1147545391253.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Royce Miller response:

Government ignores its own objectives in master plan
Email Print Normal font Large font By Royce Millar
May 18, 2006

ANALYSIS

AFTER 6½ years of studying and planning, the Bracks Government has finally revealed how it intends to realise its vision of making Melbourne a more liveable place.

In assessing it, let's use the Government's benchmark: getting Melburnians out of cars and onto public transport. Labor's aim in 2002 was that by 2020, 20 per cent of all motorised trips would be by public transport. The figure then was about 9 per cent and has increased a little since. Effectively the Liveability statement is the belated action plan to achieve this goal.(...)

continue reading: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/government-ignores-its-own-objectives/2006/05/17/1147545391256.html

More on the issue, by Royce Miller and Stephen Moynihan: "Missing the Bus", The Age, http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/missing-the-bus/2006/05/15/1147545269309.html