West Coast Public Transport
Blog Post | Blog of Rachel Siewert
Monday 17th December 2007, 6:22pm
by RachelSiewert in
Public transport has largely been the domain of State Governments but it is time that the Commonwealth refocused on public transport and put some major funds into assisting the development of comprehensive, efficient and cheap public transport in our major cities. With the recent report from the University of Melbourne determining Perth to be second only to Adelaide in excessive car-use, it is more critical than ever that more effort, resources and funding are channelled into effective public transport solutions for the west coast.
This issue is not just an environmental issue, although there will definitely be major benefits in that regard, it is also about assisting low income earners to cope with the harsh reality of living on the outskirts of Perth and dealing with higher and higher petrol prices so that they can get to work.
Australia, and much of the world, is on the brink of an economic, social and environmental crunch thanks to our love affair with private transport. With climate change, oil depletion and traffic congestion all coming together, it is clear that we need to change the direction we are heading with transport.
Dealing with these three interlinked problems requires three equally important solutions: improving vehicle fuel efficiency, replacing fossil fuels with low emission substitutes, and shifting people from private cars to safe, fast, reliable and cost effective mass transit, and freight from trucks to rail.
The advantages of shifting transport away from cars and trucks include that:
In terms of passenger capacity:
Perth has a history of effective public transport, peaking in 1933 with a total of 68 trams carrying in excess of 35 million passengers. In the wake of the Second World War, the advent of cheap oil and post-war wealth saw the piecemeal abandonment of the tram and trolley-bus network in favour of a new freeway system mandated under the Stephenson-Hepburn Plan of 1955 and consolidated as the Metropolitan Region Scheme in 1963. The last tram ran in 1958, and the private automobile has largely ruled the city ever since, with 100 kilometres of low-density, car-dependent coastal sprawl the direct consequence.
Now, as the future costs of car-based urban planning become increasingly apparent, there is a growing move towards re-orienting Perth as a transit city with medium and high-density transit-oriented developments (TODs) clustered around public transport nodes. The logic of a post-fossil society favours the reestablishment of Perth's light rail network to meet the needs of the city's burgeoning population.
Perth is still at an early stage in its evolution toward a transit city: European and Asian cities with a head-start of several decades provide striking examples of how rail recoups its costs over time while moving people more efficiently than buses or private automobiles. Stockholm is one example of a city designed around a combination of heavy and light rail, whereby semi-self contained communities cluster around transit stations, tapering from high density to low with increasing distance from the stations. The benefits of increased land values around stations, improved community values and neighbourhood amenity, decreased reliance on imported oil, improved health benefits and lower air pollution, are well-documented and enormous.
Until the advent of the TravelSmart programme in WA, there was almost no emphasis on walking and cycling in the metropolitan area. The Greens are strongly supportive of urban planning policies that emphasise the multiple benefits of walking and cycling, and support the extension of the valuable TravelSmart programme.
Currently it is generally the role of the Commonwealth Government to fund major highways and rail lines and the role of state and local governments to provide public transport services. However, large sections of Australia's rail network require substantial upgrades and mass transit services in most urban areas are so poor that driving, a considerably more expensive alternative is usually the only or strongly preferred option.
The main interstate rail lines in particular need to be brought out of the steam era, with major deviations to straighten tracks to provide for faster and heavier trains. A 2005 inquiry into the adequacy of the links between Australia's regional road and rail networks and ports by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services found in regard to rail "that if governments take a similar funding approach to that given to roads over the last two or three decades, the economic and social benefits would amply repay the effort. Australia would have a high-performance rail network, the freight burden on the roads would be reduced, and the external effects of increased transport usage would also be reduced: effects on the environment, congestion, accidents, air and noise pollution and greenhouse gas emissions."
Nonetheless, it is apparent that the Commonwealth, thanks in no small part to ABARE's insistence that oil prices will be $40 a barrel in the long term, has a strong preference for road funding. In the 30 years to 2004, the Commonwealth spent $58 billion on roads, but only $2.2 billion on the rail system. Currently the Commonwealth is investing $15.8 billion of AusLink funding (2004-2009), of which only about 9% is allocated to rail.
In addition, although the Commonwealth Government has demonstrated a willingness to fund major new road projects within cities, such as Sydney's F7 Freeway, they have not similarly funded major rail, busway or cycleway projects. This leaves a major gap, given the inability or unwillingness of most state and local governments to substantially upgrade and extend public transport services with the urgency that is required.
There have been 133 deaths and critical injuries in the Perth metropolitan area to date in 2007. In Western Australia the annual costs of road crashes exceeds $1 billion, or $600 for every person involved in a road accident. Road crashes are responsible for about 10% of all trauma patients in WA hospitals and 30% of all trauma deaths. Road accidents and fatalities are directly related to the number of cars on the road at any one time. Introducing a comprehensive public transport system (such as the light-rail system Scott Ludlam unveiled during the election campaign) in the greater Perth area could significantly reduce the number of road accidents and fatalities in the metropolitan area.
While there is evidence that people prefer high quality electric rail services to buses, there is still a threefold role for buses.
The Commonwealth Government must shift the funding and prioritisation away from roads, towards upgrading and extending the main rail lines and towards assisting state and local governments by funding significant fast mass transit projects, including light and heavy rail, dedicated busways or cycleways.
It is essential that the Government increase the proportion of funding for low-polluting and mass transit options. Only then will Government priorities begin to reflect the need to deal with climate change, oil depletion and congestion.
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Comments
I heartily agree that we
I heartily agree that we need more public transport funding. Perhaps the Senate could help by amending the next roads funding bill that floats through, saying that (for example) for each $1 spent on roads, $1 must be spent on some combination of pedestrian walkways, bicycle lanes and support, and bus, trams and trains.
I mean, we just finished off EastLink here in Melbourne, $2.5 billion for 69km of roads... Based on Perth's recent rail building, that could have built 360km of rail, and Melbourne only has 380km!
If 380km of rail already takes up 8% of all trips, then 740km could take up 15%. Thus, 7% taken from the 81% of trips which are taken by car, reducing overall roads congestion by 9%... I don't think anyone expects EastLink to do as much as that.
By which I mean to say, even the RACV and car drivers should support public transport, since it reduces congestion and makes their drive look a bit more like it always is in the adverts, the open road, wind in the hair, racing along...
I like the above mentioned
I like the above mentioned idea but our Labor and Liberal politicians just don't have the courage to make alternate decisions like that. I voted Labor in reps (sorry guys, it was Bennelong) and Greens in the senate so I have to accept my decisions for that too.
Cars are a selfish but convenient transport tool. We are still mainly a selfish society in a lot of our ways of living. I think we need to make selfishness cost more with ideas like;
1) Registrations costs need to be much more based on fuel efficiency. A Landcruiser 4WD should not cost only a few hundred dollars more than a Honda Jazz, it's a joke. They should be 4-5 times more especially in the city. (Primary producers would be exempt)
2) If you drive to the CBD or major business districts where public transport is available, then you pay $5 or $10 congestion tax in addition to parking.
3) People who use certified or registered public transport can claim it back on tax, watch all the tight-arses flock to the buses and trains overnight. And of course, get rid of salary sacrifice with the car and the ridiculous idea of leasing arrangements that benefit more the greater kilometres you do.
4) Half of all Auslink funding to go to public transport inititives and projects. Why should my share of my tax go to road projects and the moronic car user when I ride or catch the bus ?
Obviously a lot of Australian cities have poor public transport presently but if the Federal government made initiatives to drive more people away from the road for everyday work and business commuting, then the private sector would be much more enthusiastic investing in infrastructure and services. It would take care of the greenhouse debate in the suburbs.
Well, we could try to make
Well, we could try to make selfishness cost more, or we could try to change selfishness, or we could just accept it and turn it to our own ends. "To pursue your selfish end of being able to zip around in a car, you should support public transport, as it's reallly good at clearing people off the roads."
As I understand it, the Greens like to work with nature, not against it. I think we should work with _human_ nature, not against it.
"Help the roads - build rail."
Sorry Rachel, but I don't
Sorry Rachel, but I don't think your 3 solutions are equally important.
A great move, I fully support this.
Almost pointless, because most people will increase vehicle use to take advantage of the cheaper running cost. Efficiency gains of the order of 300% would be needed to make sizable energy savings. Even if this was achieved it would do nothing to address peak oil or global warming, it would merely delay their fallout.
I assume from this that you are referring to vehicles running on more environmentally friendly carbon derived fuels. Such a proposal would buy us some time, which equates to more talking rather than action, which equates to nothing. If on the other hand you are talking of a move away from carbon based fuels to "zero emission" sustainably generated alternatives (such as wind powered electric vehicles), then this would be a good move. If the vehicle fleet could be retooled without a large energy/resource transition cost, then it would be an excellent move.
Extending public transport to give good coverage for the majority of residents fixes only the SOURCE side of the problem, you've also got to ensure that virtually all of the DESTINATION side of the residents' transport requirements are met in a logistically feasible manner. This includes such things as taking little Jimmy to his soccer match very early on a saturday morning 2 suburbs away, the exact destination and time changing weekly. None of our public transport networks come close to meeting this test.
One way to wean people from their cars is to increase the congestion on roads and make trips by car comparatively slower. I suggest a simple initiative that can go some way to achieving this, at virtually no cost and with a multitude of benefits: "Pedestrian crossings at traffic lights should have a much higher priority, and be allowed to account for the lions share of the duty cycle."
When a pedestrian pushes the button the longest they should have to wait is about 15 seconds. At 3 and 4 way intersections with a lot of pedestrian traffic the stopping of vehicles in all directions to allow diagonal crosses should be common. Cyclists should be allowed to dismount and cross with pedestrians. The minimum vehiclular share of intersection use could be set at some threshold (of say 30%) so traffic doesn't completely grind to a halt. In busy CBDs it may well end up being faster to walk from one end to the other than it is to drive, bus, or taxi, this really isn't such a bad thing.
Very interesting and I must
Very interesting and I must say well written.
The big savings are on freight. Nearly 80% of Freight to Perth goes by Rail but Darwin has switched back to Road as the service is so appalling.
To move 3000 tonnes of freight 1000 kms takes:
By Road at least 75 B Doubles
About 39,000 litres of fuel
Creates 102,400 Kgs of CO2
Capital Cost of Equip (Trucks) $40M
BY Rail one locomotive and 50 wagons
About 14,000 Litres of Fuel
38,000 Kgs of CO2 created
Capital cost of Train $25M
Zoltar - while I see the end
Zoltar - while I see the end result of your idea to switch priority from cars to pedestrians, the short-term implications are worrying.
Cars emit more Co2 when idling than in transit. Increasing the wait time for traffic at lights would increase the amount of cars idling on our roads.
We need a system that shifts the focus away from private transport altogether. Whilst I agree that the system would find it very difficult to cater for every scenario (such as little Jimmy's soccer match), a shift in the public mind about the effectiveness of public transport would allow them to use it differently.
More funding, more focus and better infrastructure in public transport (particularly low-energy options) will in itself change the usefulness of mass transit. People will begin to see it as a viable, reliable, safe, cheap option compared to the congested, dirty, expensive practice of operating your own car. A similar focus could be applied to any alternative transport method - bicycle, monorail, canal, blimp, horse. ;P
The steps we suggest here are working towards a solution in a society built to depend on fossil fuels. A gradual shift is the most practicable outcome we can work towards.
If a public transport system
If a public transport system is worth building, it will pay for itself out of the resulting increases in land values. Such increases can be recaptured by the State government through an appropriately modified land tax, stamp duty or infrastructure levy. There's no need to wait for Federal funding. For a short explanation, see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6327 . For a longer one, see http://grputland.com/working/paper07.htm or http://grputland.com/subs/ipart.htm#infra .
Don't forget taxis. Taxis
Don't forget taxis.
Taxis can get Jimmy to his soccer match, any time any where.
There are 2 basic problems with taxis,1/ drivers are exploited by low wages and 2/ Fares are too expensive for many people.
Governments and councils should invest in taxis like they do rail and bus.
Taxi services need to be integrated into bus and train services with a single fare from pick up at your door to drop off at destination. A local cab picks Jimmy and his barrackers up from home, takes them to the closest train station where they travel to the closest station to the soccer oval and a cab takes them from there to the big game.
Taxis and mini buses can take (or pick up) multiple passengers to multiple destinations in the one trip, as opposed to the individual journies of present taxis. e.g. a mini bus(es) meets the train and takes people to where they need to go in the local area.
Localised, nodal systems are most appropriate for electric vehicles.
Banning private vehicles from CBD areas would eliminate congestion and provide a constant large market for the taxi/mini bus services.
I am an ex bus driver so I am a bit biased, but I believe local bus/taxi services especially with electric, hybrid or gas vehicles, is a much better option than local light rail. Buses have an infinitely variable route that can change immediately and easily as needs require, extending light rail is expensive and takes a long time.
It is easier to reroute a bus to the newly constructed soccer oval that Jimmy plays on than it is to extend light rail, especially since the grandstand is only full on weekends so there is little need for a tram during the week.
Busses can go into the back streets of neighborhoods and can pick people up closer to home, or even at home, which is a major consideration for the elderly and disabled as well as a safety concern for children wandering the streets to get to the train/tram station.
Zoltar, your assumption that
Zoltar, your assumption that "low emissions substitutes" means other carbon-based fuels is not correct.
Sure, some of it will probably be carbon-based, if second generation biofuels like ligno-cellulose can get off the ground. But most will be renewably-charged electric vehicles, in our vision.
And I think there's always a role for improving efficiency. Sure, it'll only postpone the inevitable depletion of oil, but every little bit we can postpone it will be valuable, as long as we don't increase emissions in the process!
Yes! All hail the rise of
Yes! All hail the rise of the full electric car!
It's a crime that the Toyota Prius which is completely capable of plug in charging is sold without a plug in socket. In the US many Prius drivers are paying independent contractors to install the plug in sockets in their cars (though Toyota may have some sneaky warranty voiding clause in the contract for these owners) and then charge them at home, only using petrol for the rare cross country journey.
If you own a house with a garage or driveway you can plug into mains power overnight and offset it with solar panels on the roof during the day (eventually apartment complexes and shopping centre and business carparks would have them too). Rather than carting volatile fuels from one side of the planet to the other (and even with biofuels, from the country to the city) you will eventually be able to charge anywhere there's a power line and nasty mutlinationals wont be able to control the market.
The obvious problem here is that so many car manufacturers still have petrochemical companies as major shareholders. Biofuels should be reserved for trucks and buses (where they cant be replaced by rail) and for emergency and defence force vehicles alone.
Economic rewards should also be given to those who forgo car ownership (I'm 29 and don't even have a licence and have no plans to either).
John Tracey, some of the
John Tracey, some of the disadvantages you list for trams versus buses are actually advantages. Buses do have their uses, of course, and the soccer oval run is of course an excellent example of them. But in general, they are an inferior mode when compared with trains and trams.
Rail costs a lot to put in. It's a huge investment, and it doesn't change. This means that communities develop around the rail lines. People know where the tram line goes. I live in Melbourne on a tram line, in a suburb that developed around the time the tram was put in. The line was here twenty years ago. The line will be here twenty years hence. The shops that have always run along the tram line continue to do so. On the cross roads where buses run, when the owners retire the shops become houses.
There's also fewer train and tram routes, so they run more frequent and reliable services. I rarely look at a bus timetable because they simply don't run at convenient times. If I can't get there by train or tram, I'll ride or drive. (I look at train and tram timetables though — I shouldn't have to, they should run frequently enough there's no point.)
I would love to see train and tram routes constructed on the cross roads and as a loop around Melbourne. It would make the public transport system so much more useable. (Generally, tram routes in areas which already have trams, because they're built on a scale which will support and demand it, and underground train lines with regular stations further out. Brand new suburbs could be built with trams, though.)
And none of this "let's put in a bus line to see what usage patterns are like" either — put in the tracks, the patterns will follow, as it always has done.
There is an obvious economic
There is an obvious economic reward for forgoing car ownership already. You avoid the cost of buying the car, and the ongoing maintenance costs and associated potential liabilities (i.e. causing injury and death).
You get to access subsidised public transport. You probably also walk more and are therefore reaping the benefits of exercise.
Instead of rewards for forgoing car ownership there needs to be a new cost attached to vehicle ownership equal to cost of removing the emissions created by the vehicle. And those extracted costs should be applied to actually removing emissions.
I appologise for raising
I appologise for raising little Jimmy and his soccer match, I hadn't intended to derail the thread (punn noted, but not entirely intended).
Tim Norton. I'm not happy with the wasted fuel either, but I see added congestion as one of the best drivers in getting people to switch journeys from passenger vehicles to public transport. Building more freeways, widening roads, and measures to reduce congestion clearly haven't worked, any added capacity is quickly absorbed negating the improvement (provided there isn't a large toll), or it simply shifts the traffic bottleneck to another location. Comparatively slow, stressfull, expensive, congested private road journeys should lead to greater patronage of public transport. Adding congestion might just be a necessary evil.
Gavin Putland, I had a read of your short version, and I get the drift. I live within close proximity to both the pacific highway and a rail station on the north shore line (15 min service) in Sydney, and I see many negatives as well as just the positives. The addition of the F3 freeway for example, was a great boon to the peoples of the Central Coast, Newcastle, and road freight companies, it was also a big minus to anyone downstream of the added infrastructure (and for those towns which were bipassed). The downstream communities got added traffic volumes, noise, pollution, etc, but virtually none of the benefit. Any tax change that extracts money for any real estate uplift must also compensate for downdrafts as well, and this should extend beyond just changes in transport. When the government opens/closes a school or hospital, builds a new prison, rezones land, increases/reduces a bus service, imposes a heritage order, changes an aircraft flight path, etc etc there will be many winners and losers who need to be taxed or compensated. Its all very complicated to compute, how much land value gain is due to the actions of government and how much is a factor of the residents or other actors. For example, the state governments already claim a low crime uplift factor in affluent areas (by way of land tax and stamp duties on high land/property values), when in reality the low crime rate is predominantly to do with the people living there being affluent (and having jobs) and has almost nothing to do with the level of policing?
John Tracey, taxis are a possibility. However I suspect that most carless families when faced with forking out for 4 taxi journeys plus return rail tickets every weekend so little Jimmy can get to soccer would say, "Of course you can play soccer. As long as you can find another kid in the street who'll be in the same team as you, and with who's parents we can grab a lift". Its probably not going to happen otherwise. [The taxi drivers will be less than impressed with the short trips, particularly the return legs when little Jimmy is caked in mud and perspiration.]
Tim Hollo, thankyou for clarifying. I did say in my first post that renewable powered electric vehicles were an excellent move if the vehicles could be retooled for a low energy/resource cost. The main reason that I said that the 3 solutions that Rachel had mentioned were unequal was because I view extolling efficiency measures as being akin to preaching false hope. Efficiency may be an answer for a stagnant system, but in an expanding world or economy it achieves next to nothing.
Alexander, et al, the reason that I used the soccer run example was because our metropolitan public transport networks are geared towards feeding people to the city centres. The layout is mostly radial rather than a mesh, and time tabling is centred around weekday commutes.
If Jimmy was going to get to soccer by a bus and train combination, and we assume half hourly bus service frequencies, and a quarter hourly train service, and that the bus service was running sufficiently early on a saturday morning to make the trip possible in the first place. He'd probably face a 2 min walk to bus stop, 5 min wait for bus, 10 min circuitous bus trip to station, 5 min wait for train, 5 min train trip, 25 min wait for bus (bus timetable was geared for dropping off passengers to meet the train in the morning, and not for picking passengers up), 10 min circuitous bus trip, 2 min walk, and another 30 mins to allow for something to go wrong. Transit time around 90 minutes verses a 5 to 15 minute trip by car. The direct point to point taxi option sure looks attractive.
Another quick public transport related question: How do carless households take a pet to the vet?
Alexander, As I said, I
Alexander,
As I said, I have the bias of a bus driver. I am certainly not arguing against light rail, We need a creative mix of modes.
I also have a bit of a bias for disability access, not everyone can walk a long distance to the tram station.
You are absolutely right about town planning, put the rails in and the rest will develop around it. However trams can't go into the back streets. If public transport is going to be a viable alternative to private cars then as much effort has to be put into passenger access (close to home, especially if you are carrying heavy shopping) as is put into passenger destination such as proximity to schools, shops, hospitals, entertainment etc.
Senator Siewert's article above identifies this about busses....... "Secondly to work in concert with rail timetables to distribute people to and from rail hubs, particularly in a low density city such as Perth."
I believe this aspect is crucial to the whole process of replacing private vehicles.
As I suggest in my rant above, I also think we need to blur the line between taxi and bus and design new flexible models of local timetable and route. e.g. dial a scheduled small bus(runs to time table) to pick you up from home and takes you to the tram or train, or pick you up at the station and drop you to your door, or at least the closest corner.
Z, We will have to get
Z,
We will have to get used to longer travel times one way or the other. Cars allow for living in the fast lane, no cars means slowing down. We have to allow the world to get bigger again.
I reckon, Jimmy and his team mates and their supporters and the coach should hire a bus to get to and from the game. They could all meet at the school (so they can warm up on the oval) and get dropped off there afterwards. They can hang streamers in their club's colours out the windows as the bus drives along, which will piss the bus driver off but be a lot of fun.
John, Jimmy's team may have
John, Jimmy's team may have to reorganise which clubs are in their competition so they're not travelling all over town to play. Likewise, Jimmy's mum may be interested in getting her fruit and veges delivered or organising a buying scheme with her neighbours so only one vehicle's doing a trip to get food on multiple tables.
Zoltar, I understood your
Zoltar, I understood your point about the trip to the soccer. I don't think your point about the time it takes to get there by public transport — twenty-five minute waits, windy bus routes — is on *my* side. Public transport needs to be frequent and quick all the time. That's what half my post was about: You know where the tram goes, there aren't a stupid number of trams winding through back streets on dozens of routes each infrequently serviced; the trams go frequently. Trains should be the same.
And, similarly, rail links should be built as mesh, exactly as I said: "I would love to see train and tram routes constructed on the cross roads and as a loop around Melbourne" (I did of course mean "as loops"). I note that in Melbourne's inner/middle south east there's trams going north/south and east/west already.
Winding buses, radial rails, infrequent transport... You seem to have the assumption that public transport must necessarily be the same as it is today, and so people will have to use taxis. I thought this thread was about improving public transport, and there's no way we have to look at semi-private transport yet for anyone but the elderly and disabled. The cost-benefit ratio for public transport is so much better. (Every time you catch a taxi from your door, the taxi has to make *two* trips for your one — you would've been better off driving yourself.)
As for going to the vet, I have no idea why people shouldn't be allowed to take pets on public transport, as long as they're not doing it during peak hour and they're suitable constrained. Can't you currently? (In Melbourne, you can bring caged pets onto all modes, and dogs with leads and muzzles onto trains.)
And John: As for Senator Siewert's article, trams are just as suitable for bringing people to fast commuter lines into the city. More suitable in fact, due to their visibility. They won't run down every backstreet, but they don't need to. Who wants to walk five minutes to a bus that spends twenty minutes winding through backstreets? Just walk ten minutes to a tram that goes directly to the station.
And of course, I'm not saying trains and trams should be the only forms of public transport. Buses have their uses. But putting buses on winding routes through backstreets isn't going to encourage people to use public transport; visible, frequent services are.
The word is BICYCLE folks,
The word is BICYCLE folks, and I mean using them as vehicles not just as toys.
The new railway is indeed very fast and very smooth. However, you get the feeling all the stations entry and exit points were designed by motorists, inadequate and lengthy - mmm, not unlike Fremantle railway station. (When a man in a suit jumps a fence in peak hour, you know it is bad.)
Dual moding with the bike and the train works, but only if the facilities are there. Mind you, a survey of Claremont railway station shown that 47% of cars parked drove less than 800m. That is how pathetic people can be and perhaps an indication of why Australians are putting on a kilogram every year. 800m? would n't even look at the bike for that.
Alexander; I agree with most of what you say
"Every time you catch a taxi from your door, the taxi has to make *two* trips for your one — you would’ve been better off driving yourself.)" - not always true, think of going to the airport or Burswood or anywhere there is a taxi rank - taxi just hopes in the queue waiting for the next fare - and there is always the possibility if the company has it's act together, to assign the taxi another fare in the area.
Post new comment