national passenger transport agenda passenger transport agenda - 2006.pdfgrown from policy settings...
TRANSCRIPT
National Passenger Transport Agenda |2006>
>06N
ational Passenger Transport A
genda |20
06
>
General
The ARA would like to thank L.E.K. Consulting
for the preparation of this report. The provision
of ideas, data and comments from State and
Commonwealth Governments and Transport
Operators is gratefully acknowledged.
ARA Office
Unit 17, Level 3, National Circuit,
Barton ACT 2600
PO Box 4864, Kingston ACT 2604, Australia
Telephone 02 6270 4500
Facsimile 02 6273 5581
Website www.ara.net.au
Published by the
Australasian Railway Association Inc
© 2006 All Rights Reserved
Designed by GRi.D, Canberra
Printed by Pirion
Images on pages ii, viii, 34, 58, and 72
provided by RailGallery
Intro Para National Passenger Transport Agenda |2006>
Australia is the only OECD country without a national ‘moving people’ strategy. Only 10% of daily city travel is undertaken by public transport. This trend has historically grown from policy settings that favour car users, whether at the city design level, in road-funding or tax incentives to the car industry and car users.
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > iii
Message from the ARA Chairman
There have been encouraging increases in public transport
usage nationally over the past 12 months. Some of this is
due to people re-considering their options with rising fuel
costs, together with individual network improvements. Some
State Governments are supporting the public transport
system with better planning, integration and injections of
much-needed funding. But there is still much to do.
This is an industry that sees responsibility for its planning,
policy-making and funding spread across a number of
areas and levels of government. There is a need for a
coordinated and focussed approach to best usage of the
existing system. To date this has had its challenges.
The irrefutable benefits of an effective public transport
system go beyond economic considerations alone.
Benefits for the community and the environment affect
our very way of life.
This report presents a clear analysis of the Australian
Public Transport System to allow and promote informed
debate. It also proposes actions for all levels of government,
passenger transport operators and the business community
to significantly improve and expand Australia’s public
transport sector.
This report underlines the vital need for action if we
are to truly achieve a revitalisation of urban public
transport in Australia. I urge you play your part in taking
recommendations of this report forward.
Bob Scheuber
ARA Chairman
iv < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ix
Main Report x
Chapter One—Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges 1
1.1 Social and Demographic Trends 3
1.1.1 Employment Trends 3
1.1.2 Changing Travel Patterns 7
1.1.3 More Affordable Cars with Better Features 7
1.1.4 Ageing Population 7
1.2 City Design Issues 11
1.3 Operational and Funding Issues 11
1.3.1 Peak Period Capacity Constraints 14
1.3.2 Poor Capacity Utilisation (off peak) 18
1.3.3 Inadequate Service Coverage in the Outer Suburbs 18
1.3.4 Passenger and Freight Rail Interaction 19
1.3.5 Historical Public Transport Under-Funding 20
1.3.6 Impact of Road Congestion (Bus, Tram) 20
1.3.7 Low Cost Recoveries 20
1.3.8 Ineffi cient Work Practices 24
1.4 Policy and Governance Challenges 26
1.4.1 Fragmented and Inconsistent Governance 26
1.4.2 Unfavourable Tax System (Fringe Benefi ts Tax) 31
1.4.3 Approaches of Other National Governments 31
1.5 Concluding Remarks 32
Chapter Two—The Case for Public Transport 35
2.1 Congestion 37
2.1.1 Drivers of Congestion 37
2.1.2 Measures of Congestion 38
2.1.3 Costs of Congestion 38
2.1.4 Implications of Congestion 42
2.1.5 Possible Solutions to Congestion 42
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > v
Table of Contents
2.2 Fuel Use and Related Effects 48
2.3 Environment and Health 48
2.4 Social Exclusion 53
2.5 Concluding Remarks 56
Chapter Three—Proposed Actions for Stakeholders 59
3.1 Commonwealth Government 63
3.1.1 Establish a Mechanism for a Comprehensive, National Treatment of Public Transport Issues 63
3.1.2 Provide Oversight and Monitoring of Operator Effi ciency 64
3.1.3 Provide One-off Reform Payments 64
3.1.4 Take Leadership on a Number of Specifi c Initiatives 64
3.1.5 Align Taxes with Public Transport Policy 65
3.1.6 Reduce Compliance Burdens 65
3.1.7 Develop a Coordinated National Public Transport Plan 66
3.1.8 Targeted Funding for Major Capital Works 66
3.2 State Governments 66
3.2.1 Improve the Approach to Planning 66
3.2.2 Enhance the Public Transport Service Offering 67
3.3 Local Government 68
3.3.1 Planning 68
3.3.2 Liveability 69
3.3.3 Service Delivery 69
3.4 The Business Community 70
3.5 The Public Transport Operators 70
Appendices 73
Appendix A—Sources 75
Appendix B—Rail Networks—Projects to 2020 78
Appendix C—APTG Terms of Reference 81
vi < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
Exhibits List
Exhibit 1 Total Public Transport Patronage 4
Exhibit 2 Mode Share 4
Exhibit 3 Public Transport Issues and Challenges 5
Exhibit 4 Employment Trends 5
Exhibit 5 Employment Within CBDs 6
Exhibit 6 Passenger Vehicles and Car Ownership 6
Exhibit 7 International Road Motor Vehicles 8
Exhibit 8 Car Affordability and Disposable Income 8
Exhibit 9 Relative Value Proposition of “Personal Car Space” 9
Exhibit 10 Vehicle Kilometres Travelled 9
Exhibit 11 Australia’s Ageing Population 10
Exhibit 12 Population Density 10
Exhibit 13 Transit Operating Cost Recovery in Global Cities 12
Exhibit 14 Proportion of Wealth Spent on Passenger Transport in Global Cities 12
Exhibit 15 Suburban Rail Networks 13
Exhibit 16 Passenger Volumes by Time of Day 13
Exhibit 17 Rail Capacity Constraints—Sydney and Melbourne 15
Exhibit 18 Major Rail Capacity Enhancements 15
Exhibit 19a Melbourne Rail Network 2020 16
Exhibit 19b Sydney Rail Network 2020 16
Exhibit 19c Brisbane Rail Network 2020 17
Exhibit 20 Patronage Impact of Fuel Price Rises 17
Exhibit 21 Service Level Benchmarks 18
Exhibit 22 Rail Freight Enhancements—Sydney Metropolitan Area 19
Exhibit 23 Length of Road Per Capita 21
Exhibit 24 Major Rail Projects 21
Exhibit 25 Average Age of Australian Metropolitan Rollingstock Fleet 22
Exhibit 26 Total Operating Cost and Farebox for Public Transport 22
Exhibit 27 Operating Cost Recovery 23
Exhibit 28 Populations Entitled to Concession Fares 23
Exhibit 29 Examples of Concession Discounts 25
Exhibit 30 Farebox Revenue Foregone Due to Concession Policies 25
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > vii
Exhibits List
Exhibit 31 Operating Cost Metrics 27
Exhibit 32 Cost Comparison of Sydney Buses and Private Operator 27
Exhibit 33 Responsibility for Transport 28
Exhibit 34 National Forum for Transport 28
Exhibit 35 Ministerial Responsibilities for Transport and Planning 30
Exhibit 36 Customer Management Organisations 30
Exhibit 37 Fringe Benefi ts Tax (Cars vs Public Transport) 32
Exhibit 38 Road Use Trends 39
Exhibit 39 Urban Road Freight 39
Exhibit 40 Road Freight Activity by Vehicle Type 40
Exhibit 41 Average Travel Speeds in Peak Hour 40
Exhibit 42 Delay Times 41
Exhibit 43 Cost of Congestion 41
Exhibit 44 Australian Congestion Costs 43
Exhibit 45 Types of Road Use Pricing 47
Exhibit 46 Projected Oil Prices 47
Exhibit 47 Fuel Price Elasticity 49
Exhibit 48 Energy Use by Mode 49
Exhibit 49 Fuel Price Sensitivity 50
Exhibit 50 Per Capita Greenhouse Gas Emissions 50
Exhibit 51 Transport Emissions 51
Exhibit 52 Emissions by Source 51
Exhibit 53 Mortality and Morbidity 52
Exhibit 54 Air Pollutant Exposure 52
Exhibit 55 Passenger Transport Externality Costs 54
Exhibit 56 Total Cost of Transport 54
Exhibit 57 Costs of Transport in Sydney 55
Exhibit 58 Vehicle Ownership and Income 55
Exhibit 59 Accessibility of Employment 57
Exhibit 60 Disadvantage in Suburban Melbourne 57
Exhibit 61 The Roles of Different Levels of Government 62
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > ix
Executive Summary
Without such an across-the-board focussed agenda,
backed by all levels of government including the
Commonwealth, Australia faces growing urban congestion
and mobility issues, constraining the national economy
and diminishing the quality of life that Australians so value
— and expect as our birthright.
Fact: Only 10% of city trips in Australia are undertaken by
public transport, yet
Fact: if those 3 million plus trips currently made daily by
public transport were converted to private car trips,
our cities would cease to function effectively.
Fact: The Commonwealth Government takes a ‘hands-off’
approach to public transport yet in effect, promotes
car usage. It does so through such areas as roads
funding, tax incentives favouring company car usage
and support to the automotive industry.
Fact: In the last year rising petrol prices have driven a 4%
rise in rail patronage nationally—up to 10% in some
instances, with resultant impact on the capacity of
already constrained passenger systems and also
affecting freight movements.
Fact: Recognising the need for action some State
Governments have invested in public transport, but
these efforts alone will struggle at best to maintain
the status quo.
Fact: The National forum for passenger transport issues
(APTG) is under-resourced.
Fact: Throwing money at this significant problem is not
the only solution—much can be achieved through
coordinated planning and a national approach.
Fact: Lines of responsibility for the broad range of
transport issues including funding, policy, planning,
maintenance and taxes can cut across government
departments with conflicting interests.
Fact: A continuation of the current fragmented approach
to public transport has a potentially enormous,
deleterious impact on Australia’s economy,
city liveability, and the health of its population
and ecology.
The benefits of an effective public transport system reach
through economic issues and the mitigation of rising fuel
prices—into the very heart of the Australian way of life. It
can ameliorate and avert further growing traffic congestion
(already costing the economy more than $15bn pa),
improve city liveability, have far-reaching environmental
and health benefits, and provide mobility for those who for
numerous reasons are otherwise excluded.
This Report, commissioned by the ARA and prepared with
the assistance of L.E.K. Consulting in wide consultation
with major stakeholders, seeks to draw an urgent, collective
and concerted focus on the critical situation of passenger
transport in Australia. It provides not only analysis of the
current situation but also a call to action in proposing a
way ahead, via a comprehensive list of actions for all key
stakeholders in Australian passenger transport.
Australia is the only OECD country without a national ‘moving people’ strategy. This report presents a compelling case for an integrated and coordinated approach to public transport, involving all levels of government, public transport operators, and the business community. It proposes a National Passenger Transport Agenda, clearly outlining actions required to significantly improve the effectiveness of Australia’s public transport sector.
x < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
Every day, public transport provides over 3million passenger trips in Australian capital cities. In Sydney it carries nearly 80% of city bound-workers on weekdays; the comparable figure in Melbourne is 60%. If these commuters were to drive their cars, there would need to be many more car parks and significant land space would have to be turned into roads.
Main Report
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > xi
Main Report
Effective public transport can provide compelling benefits
for the economy, community and environment. It can help
to relieve road congestion in metropolitan areas, reducing
delays for drivers and freight transport. It can provide relief
from rising fuel costs, particularly for households in the
“mortgage belt” middle and outer suburbs that are most
impacted by rising petrol prices. Emissions from public
transport are significantly lower than for private cars on a
per capita basis, so it can help to reduce transport emis-
sions that contribute to climate change. Public transport is
safer and healthier for communities, and can reduce social
exclusion for the significant numbers of people without
access to a car, particularly the aged, the disabled and
the unemployed.
State Governments spend at least $5bn on public transport
annually but, for many different reasons, our public trans-
port systems are barely treading water. First and foremost,
our cities have been designed around private cars and
cheap fuel (petrol is significantly cheaper in Australia than
in most other countries), a design philosophy that must
be re-considered. Not surprisingly, dispersed, car-centric
cities have to dedicate proportionately higher amounts of
their economic wealth to transportation. Low urban density
contributes to the poor cost recovery of our public transport
systems with revenue covering only 32% of operating costs,
very low by international standards. Over the last 12 months
there has been a pronounced increase in public transport
patronage (up by 10% in some cities) as a result of higher
petrol prices. This has compounded capacity constraints,
with increasing levels of crowding and overloading reported
on trains and other modes. Increasing traffic and associated
congestion is slowing down road based modes (bus, light
rail). On the rail system, there are also capacity constraints
between passenger and freight services, limiting the amount
of freight that can be carried by rail.
Australia needs a more focussed passenger transport
agenda, or we will see urban congestion and mobility con-
straining the national economy and diminishing the quality
of life in cities. Over the last two years, most State Govern-
ments have recognised the scale of historical underinvest-
ment in public transport, and begun to act. Over $25bn of
additional funding has been committed to public transport
improvements over the next fifteen years. This is a good first
step, but it will take a considerable time before the benefits
of these investments are apparent. Many additional actions
will be required by State and Local Governments, by the
business community and by transport operators them-
selves. Many of these actions do require significant funding;
however initiatives such as road pricing, fares reform and
efficiency improvements require political leadership, rather
than capital. Australia is the only OECD country that does
not have a national ‘moving people’ strategy. The Com-
monwealth Government has a strong interest in ensuring
efficient freight movements and furthering economic growth
through vibrant, prosperous and well functioning cities. It
also bears many of the costs and consequences of social
exclusion that can arise through poor access to jobs and
services. There is a clear need for the Commonwealth
Government to take action to help improve public transport,
recognising that State Governments will still have primary
responsibility for funding and delivery of services.
The Australasian Railway Association (ARA) has developed
an industry proposal for a National Passenger Transport
Agenda. The focus of the report is on metropolitan public
transport, including all public transport modes, not just rail,
recognising that all modes have legitimate and complemen-
tary roles in getting our cities to function better. It has been
prepared with the assistance of L.E.K. Consulting, a leading
global consulting firm with significant expertise in passen-
ger transport. In developing this proposal, ARA seeks to
increase the quality of debate and policy development about
passenger transport in Australia, provide new analysis to
contribute to this debate and engage key stakeholders. The
national agenda sets out a diagnosis of the current situation,
but more importantly, outlines clear actions for each of the
key stakeholders in passenger transport. Collectively, these
actions can create a passenger transport system that under-
pins the sustainability, liveability and economic prosperity of
Australia’s great cities.
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges |Ch.1>
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 3
Over the last two decades, public transport patronage across
Australia grew by 1.1% p.a., effectively at the same rate as
population growth (see Exhibit 1).1
Over the last 30 years, Australia’s public transport mode
share has declined significantly. Between 1973 and 2003,
mode share fell from 12% to 7%. Data for major cities
suggest mode share has been broadly flat over the last
10 years (see Exhibit 2). However these overall mode share
statistics understate the importance of public transport to
functioning cities. For example, the proportion of people
who use public transport to access city areas in the morning
peak ranges from 35% in Perth, to 60% in Melbourne and
over 80% in Sydney. It has been estimated that the 200,000
plus people that commute into Sydney each working day by
rail would need 65 freeway lanes and 782 hectares of car
parking if they travelled by car.2
A necessary step towards defining a future agenda is
a clear diagnosis of the status quo. L.E.K. Consulting
met with a wide range of transport stakeholders
across Australia, including public transport operators,
Government Departments, leading academics and industry
commentators in order to determine and highlight the most
pertinent issues facing public transport. These issues are
summarised in Exhibit 3.
Australia’s public transport systems currently face significant
social and demographic trends, city design issues,
operational and funding issues and policy and governance
challenges. Each of these topics is discussed throughout
the remainder of this section.
1.1 Social and Demographic Trends
Various clearly observable social trends are impacting
Australia’s public transport networks. Employment trends,
changing travel patterns and greater car affordability have
all led to increasing reliance on private vehicles. Australia’s
ageing population is also impacting public transport usage
and cost recovery.
1.1.1 Employment Trends
Over the last decade, employment patterns across the
country have been changing; the traditional 9 am to 5 pm
working day is no longer the ‘norm’. There is also now a
higher proportion of employees with a varied work week
schedule (i.e. flexible working hours such as 40 hours in
4 days), or working part-time (see Exhibit 4). In addition to
employees working differently, they are also working longer
hours. From 1979 to 1999, the proportion of employees who
work 50 hours or more per week increased from 14 to 19%.
The location of work is also changing. CBD employment has
been growing in absolute terms, underlining the importance
of having strong CBD-bound public transport systems to
efficiently move large numbers of people in peak periods.
Despite this growth, the proportion of employment in CBD
areas has declined to varying degrees in all of the five
largest cities in the period 1981 to 2001 (see Exhibit 5).
Transport systems are therefore having to deal with more
dispersed employment and travel patterns.
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
A well integrated and efficient transport system (incorporating both road and public transport) is a vital ingredient for a liveable and economically prosperous city. Good transportation allows people to efficiently access employment, services such as education and healthcare as well as recreation. This section describes the current status of public transport in Australian cities, and identifies key issues and challenges facing the sector.
4 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT 1: TOTAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT PATRONAGETotal Public Transport Patronage. All Modes by Capital City (1985–05)
CAGR%(1985–05)
Perth
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1985 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05
Melbourne
Sydney
Note: CAGR = Compound Annual Growth RateSource: QLD (CityTrain, Brisbane Transport and Brisbane City Council Ferries); NSW (State Transit Authority,
RailCorp, Transport and Population Data Centre); VIC (Department of Infrastructure); WA (Transperth); SA(Adelaide Metro and TransAdelaide)
Mill
ions
of P
asse
nger
s p.
a.
1.1
1.4
2.4
Total
Adelaide (1.6)
PopulationGrowth
1.3
Brisbane 1.2
1.1
EXHIBIT 2: MODE SHAREPublic Transport Mode Share Public Transport Share of Motorised TravelUrban Motorised Passenger Transport (1973–03) Melbourne (1994–02)
0
5
10
15
1973 83 93 03
Source: Road Facts (2005), Victorian Activity and Travel Survey
Perc
ent
Perc
ent
0
5
10
15
1994 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02
WeekdayAverage
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 5
EXHIBIT 3: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC
TRENDS
OPERATIONAL AND
FUNDING ISSUES
CITY DESIGN ISSUES
POLICY AND GOVERNANCE
CHALLENGES
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
ISSUES AND
CHALLENGES
EXHIBIT 4: EMPLOYMENT TRENDSProportion of Employees with Varied Working Days1 Full Time and Part-Time Workers
Perc
ent
Mill
ions
of P
eopl
e
Note: 1 Employees who do not work Monday-FridaySource: ABS Working Arrangements (November 2000); ABS Social Trends (4102.0)
0
20
40
60
80
100
1993 000
2
4
6
8
10
1994 04
Part-Time
Full-Time72%
28%
24%
76%
7.8
9.6
3641
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
6 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT 5: EMPLOYMENT WITHIN CBDSPercentage of Jobs in CBD (1981–01)
Perc
ent
Source: ABS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Perth
1981
2001
11.7 11.2 11.410.2
14.012.9
24.1
21.1
13.2
8.5
EXHIBIT 6: PASSENGER VEHICLES AND CAR OWNERSHIPRegistered Vehicles and New Vehicle Sales, Australia (1990–05) Car Ownership/Population, Australia1 (1990–04)
Vehi
cles
(Mill
ions
)
Cars
/,00
0 po
pula
tion
Note: 1 Car Ownership rate based on NSW, VIC, QLD, WA and SASource: ABS; 2006 Black and White Book
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1990 92 94 96 98 00 02 04
CAGR%(1990–04)
1.4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1990 95 00 05
CAGR%(1990–05)
TotalVehicles
NewVehiclesSold
2.2
3.2
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 7
These changes in employment patterns have significant
implications for Australia’s transport systems. Varied work-
week schedules have increased the number of commutes
that occur during non-peak periods. Longer working hours
have increased the length of the evening peak period
because fewer people leave the office at 5pm. Jobs in the
suburbs are increasing but they are harder to serve with the
existing predominantly radial, city-focussed public transport
networks. The extent to which these jobs are located in, or
near, transit-friendly developments will be a key driver of the
ability to serve them via public transport, either now or in
the future.
1.1.2 Changing Travel Patterns
Over the last few decades, there has been a continuing shift
in employment away from manufacturing and into services.
These types of jobs tend to be more geographically diverse,
and many involve travel between sites (eg cleaning, child
minding, couriers etc).
There has also been an increase in multi-itinerary trips as
people live busier and more complex lives; dropping the
children at school before work; travelling to sport after work;
shopping at night etc.
Each of these factors has tended to favour car use over
public transport. With current levels of service coverage and
frequency, public transport has not been competitive with
private cars for these more complex trips.
1.1.3 More Affordable Cars with Better Features
Our major cities have been designed around cars and
most residents, particularly those in the outer metropolitan
areas, are largely car dependent. There are now over
13m registered vehicles in Australia, or two for every three
people, and annual new car sales number around 1m p.a.
Car ownership per person has grown steadily and Australia
now has one of the highest ownership rates in the world
(Exhibits 6 and 7).
This strong growth in vehicle ownership has been driven
by two factors. Since 1995, the price of cars, (as measured
by the Motor Vehicle CPI) has decreased by 3.8% p.a. in
real terms making cars 25% cheaper (see Exhibit 8). At the
same time, average weekly earnings have grown steadily.
In 1995, a new Ford Falcon cost 44 weeks average salary.
Today, it costs around 38 weeks.3 Modern cars also have
more features that make them much more comfortable and
safe to drive. 20 years ago, a four door Toyota Corolla cost
$16,800 (in 2006 dollars). This car would have included
little more than a standard radio cassette player. Today,
a four door Toyota Yaris can be purchased for around
$16,000 dollars. Not only is the Yaris cheaper, but it
includes many additional features such as a CD player, air
conditioner, power windows and power steering (Exhibit 9).
Such features, now readily available in low cost vehicles,
have raised the bar for customer expectations of public
transport. For example, air conditioning is now considered
essential on most trains, trams and buses.
In addition to the falling cost of cars, Australian motorists
also pay less for their fuel than people in most other
developed countries.4
Over the last twenty years, car usage, measured by vehicle
kilometres travelled, has been growing faster than public
transport patronage (Exhibit 10). Historically there has
been a relatively strong relationship between economic
wealth and travel undertaken by individuals5. However the
last several years of vehicle use data suggest that we have
begun to see a slow down in traffic growth as measured by
vehicle kilometres travelled. This is consistent with a similar
trend observed in the US, where growth in vehicle miles
has slowed significantly over the last 15 years. While it is
too early to be definitive about this trend, it suggests the
possibility that we may be reaching some sort of upper limit
in terms of the amount of travel individuals are prepared to
undertake. It is not unreasonable to expect that rises in fuel
prices and concerns over climate change might further slow
growth in car travel. If these trends continue, it may not be
necessary to continue to invest in roads to the extent that
has occurred over the last several decades, freeing up some
proportion of funds for public transport and other uses.
1.1.4 Ageing Population
Like many western countries, Australia’s population is
ageing. Currently, approximately 18% of the population is
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
8 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT 7: INTERNATIONAL ROAD MOTOR VEHICLESRoad Motor Vehicles/Population (2004)
Vehi
cles
/1,0
00 p
opul
atio
n
Note: Road Motor Vehicles includes buses, freight vehicles and motorcycles as well aspassenger motor cars
Source: OECD Factbook 2006 Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
USA
Portu
gal
New
Zeal
and
Italy
Aust
ralia
Japa
n
Fran
ce
Germ
any
Spai
n
Switz
erla
nd
Aust
ria
Norw
ay
Belg
ium
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
Neth
erla
nds
Finl
and
Swed
en
Irela
nd
Gree
ce
Denm
ark
Czec
h Re
publ
ic
Pola
nd
Slov
ak R
epub
lic
Hung
ary
EXHIBIT 8: CAR AFFORDABILITY AND DISPOSABLE INCOMEMotor Vehicle CPI1 (Real 2005), (1995–2005) Average Weekly Full Time Earnings (Real 2005), (1995–2005)
Inde
x 199
5 =
100
Inde
x 199
5 =
100
Note: 1 The Motor Vehicle CPI is a measure of the prices of personal motor vehicles. This index does notinclude the cost of use such as fuel, insurance, and maintenance
Source: ABS Consumer Price Index; ABS 6302
CAGR%(1995–05)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1995 97 99 01 03 05
(3.8)
CAGR%(1995–05)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
95 97 99 01 03 05
1.8
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 9
EXHIBIT 9: RELATIVE VALUE PROPOSITION OF ‘PERSONAL CAR SPACE’
Source: 2006 Black & White Automotive Industry Data Book; Toyota Company Website
1985 2006
Toyota Yaris 1.3YR Toyota Corolla AE80
New: $16,800(1985 $A: $9,100)
New: $16,190
Radio / Cassette Player CD Player
Air Conditioning
ABS
Alarm System
Power Steering
Power Windows
Air Bags
Car Features Car Features
EXHIBIT 10: VEHICLE KILOMETRES TRAVELLEDTotal VKT in Personal Vehicles (1979) Total VKT in Personal Vehicles within State Capital (2000–05)
Billi
ons
of K
MS
Billi
ons
of K
MS
Source: ABS Survey of Motor Vehicle Use
2.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1979 95 98 00 03 04 05
NSW
VIC
QLD
WASA
TAS
ACTNT
Australia
2.7
0.2
4.7
4.10.6
2.7
(0.6)(1.6)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000 01 02 03 04 05
0.5
CAGR% CAGR%
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
10 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT 11: AUSTRALIA’S AGEING POPULATIONAustralia’s Population, 2006 vs 2021
Source: ABS; Productivity Commission
200 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 2000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100+
Age
Thousands of Population
Female Male
2006
2021
EXHIBIT 12: POPULATION DENSITYPopulation Density in Major Cities (2004)
Peop
le p
er h
ecta
re
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
New
York
Toky
o
Chic
ago
Sina
pore
Hong
Kon
g
Lond
on
San
Fran
cisc
o
Paris
Berli
n
Sydn
ey
Mel
bour
ne
Bris
bane
Source: DOI Submission to VCEC “Inquiry into Managing Transport Congestion”; The Economist
48
90
1814
10
102
38
59596365
79
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 11
60 years or older. By 2021, this proportion will increase
to approximately 25% (see Exhibit 11). This has several
implications for public transport.
First, a higher proportion of people will be eligible for
concession tickets and this will lower cost recoveries.
Currently, Melbourne and Sydney already forgo annual
fare box revenues of approximately $100 million and
$200 million p.a. respectively due to concessions. This will
increase with the ageing population if concession policies
are left unchanged. Second, public transport systems must
be prepared to accommodate a greater proportion of the
customer base who are over 60 in the future by modifying
the design of stations, stops and rollingstock to allow for
their reduced mobility.
1.2 City Design Issues
As we enter an era of higher fuel prices and greater
pressure on carbon emissions, it is becoming increasingly
clear that Australian cities have, for many decades, been
designed around private vehicles and cheap fuel. This
imposes significant constraints on the costs of transport
for cities, the efficiency of greater investment in public
transport, and our ability to change.
Australian cities are large, with low population densities
relative to many international cities (see Exhibit 12).6
This low urban density has a number of implications
for the overall cost of transport provision and both the
competitiveness and economics of public transport.
Low density cities with high car dependency are typified by
low public transport mode share, low cost recovery public
transport systems and a high overall cost for passenger
transport. Extensive analysis of mode share and cost
recovery trends undertaken by Newman and Kenworthy,
based on data from the early 1990s, concluded that “the
percentage transit cost recovery follows very precisely the
level of car dependency of a city” (Exhibit 13) and that
“cities with the highest automobile dependence (Australian
and US cities) have the highest overall proportion of
transport costs” (Exhibit 14).7
An example of the impact of urban design is its effect on the
efficiency of the public transport network, as indicated by
rail track length per capita (Exhibit 15), which in part drives
higher transport costs.
Most States have recently developed and released
planning policies with an explicit focus on increasing urban
density. For example, Melbourne’s 2030 planning policy
targets 30% of new dwellings in Greenfield locations,
down from 40-50% historically.8 Sydney’s Metropolitan
Strategy and the South East Queensland Regional Plan
incorporate similar objectives. In Sydney, the plan is to
contain 60-70% of new housing to existing urban areas and
locate 66% of new dwellings near transit nodes,9 while the
South East Queensland Regional Plan aims to restrict urban
development to areas defined by “Urban Footprints”.10
From a public transport perspective, these plans represent
a material step in the right direction. A tighter urban
form will improve both the mode share and economics of
public transport. There is, however, significant pressure
on Governments to continue to release cheap land at the
urban fringes, not the least because there is a perceived
crisis in housing affordability. There is also pressure for
high levels of parking provision in infill developments.
Giving in to these pressures will simply amplify existing
transportation problems.
The implications of the preceding discussion is clear;
greater urban consolidation and concentration of
development around transport nodes is an action of the
highest priority, and political leadership will be required to
bring it about in the face of stakeholder resistance. It is also
critical that these regional plans are regularly updated, and
that progress towards their goals is closely monitored. In this
regard, the process that the Queensland Government has
laid out for the regular updating of its Regional Infrastructure
Plan is to be highly commended.
1.3 Operational and Funding Issues
Australia’s metropolitan public transport networks face a
number of operational and funding issues. These include
peak period capacity constraints, poor off-peak utilisation,
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
12 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT 13: TRANSIT OPERATING COST RECOVERY IN GLOBAL CITIESTransit operating cost recovery (1990)
Perc
ent
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
WealthyAsian Cities
DevelopingAsian Cities
Toronto EuropeanCities
AustraliaCities
US Cities
Source: Sustainability and Cities, Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy
EXHIBIT 14: PROPORTION OF WEALTH SPENT ON PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION IN GLOBAL CITIESWealth spent on passengers transport (1990)
Perc
ent o
f GRP
Source: Sustainability and Cities, Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy
AustraliaCities
US Cities EuropeanCities
Toronto Wealthy AsianCities
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 13
EXHIBIT 15: SUBURBAN RAIL NETWORKSSuburban Rail Network Length Per 1000 Inhabitants
Met
res
of R
oute
/1,0
00 In
habi
tant
s
Oslo
Bern
Glas
gow
Prag
ue
Mun
ich
Buda
pest
Vien
na
War
saw
Paris
Gene
va
Barc
elon
a
Vale
ncia
Rotte
rdam
Rom
e
Chic
ago
Hels
inki
Dubl
in
Turin
Nant
es
Krak
ow
Athe
ns
Sevi
lle
Tuni
s
Sing
apor
e
Mar
seill
es
Cler
mon
t
Zuric
h
Cope
nhag
en
Stoc
khol
m
Stut
tgar
t
Brus
sels
Sydn
ey
Lond
onBr
isba
neLy
ons
Berli
n
Bilb
ao
Ham
burg
Mel
bour
neLi
lle
Adel
aide
Mila
n
Amst
erda
m
Man
ches
ter
Mad
rid
Lisb
on
Newc
astle
Perth
Talli
nn
Ghen
t
Mos
cow
Graz
Bolo
gna
Hong
Kon
g
Sao
Paul
o
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Note: Data for Australian cities is from 2006; Other cities are 2001Source: UITP Mobility in Cities Database, Australian Rail Operators
EXHIBIT 16: PASSENGER VOLUMES BY TIME OF DAYMelbourne Rail Passenger Volumes by Time of Day. Cordon Counts—Example Line, Melbourne
Aver
age
Load
Source: Department of Infrastructure
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
7:00 7:47 8:28 9:15 10:05 11:05 14:09 15:09 16:06 16:44 17:25 18:08 18:56 19:34
Scheduled Time
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
14 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
freight congestion (rail), road congestion (impacting tram
and bus) and low cost recoveries. There is also some
evidence of inefficient work practices leading to high costs.
1.3.1 Peak Period Capacity Constraints
Australia’s public transport systems generally have sharp
peaks. While the overall morning and evening peaks extend
for at least two hours, there is an intense “super-peak”
period of 30-45 minutes particularly in the morning. The
Victorian Department of Infrastructure recently commented
that “…average loads were extremely high for only short
bursts of time…” Average loads over the day are shown for
one rail line in the diagram below, and this profile would be
generally representative of rail systems around the nation
(see Exhibit 16).11
Rail systems are also constrained by the capacity of
rollingstock and by the spacing between trains. For reasons
of signalling and boarding/unloading time, the average
spacing between trains at peak times is usually around
3 minutes.
Many of our rail systems are facing significant capacity
constraints in peak periods. In Melbourne, a considerable
number of train lines including the Sydenham, Dandenong,
Pakenham and Broadmeadows lines are either at or near
capacity during peak times. Spare capacity in the city loop
is now limited during the peak as the Northern Loop already
operates at capacity whilst the Burnley, Caulfield and Clifton
Loops are approaching capacity (see Exhibit 17).
In Sydney, the problem is similar and it is expected that
Sydney’s inner city train lines will shortly reach full capacity:
“…despite all the operational refinements proposed on
all corridors into the city…the inner city lines will all be
saturated within the next ten years or so…”.12 The West/
North Shore line, City Circle and Eastern Suburbs line all
face serious capacity constraint problems during peaks
(see Exhibit 17).
Brisbane is also approaching a major inner-city capacity
problem with the river crossing and inner-city tunnels
approaching capacity limits within about 10 years, imposing
a serious constraint on overall system capacity if not
addressed appropriately.
Over the last 2 to 3 years, most State Governments have
announced or commenced several major rail projects aimed
at improving the capacity of the metropolitan rail systems.
Some of these projects are described in the table below
(see Exhibit 18).
Despite the significant funds already committed to rail
expansion, more funds will be required to meet projected
growth. There will also be a need to invest in new
technologies (eg signalling, communications, train control)
that can increase the effective capacity of rail infrastructure.
The diagrams in Exhibits 19a, 19b and 19c show the
Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane Rail networks. The orange
areas of the diagrams show enhancements that have been
announced or planned (many are still subject to approval of
detailed business cases). The green areas of the diagrams
show additional capacity expansions required to meet 2020
patronage that are not yet included in plans.
Given these peak capacity constraints, greater effort will be
needed to manage certain aspects of demand while also
increasing supply. In many Australian cities, Government
fares policy includes some heavily discounted tickets for
seniors/pensioners that can be used all day, including
peak periods. In one city examined by L.E.K., such tickets
accounted for 11% of patronage in the morning peak. This
is in contrast to cities like London where heavily discounted
tickets for seniors are only able to be used after 9:00am.13
Recent strong growth in fuel prices has caused a surge in
public transport usage, putting further pressure on capacity
in peak periods. There are a large number of factors that
can influence patronage growth, making any year-on-year
comparison difficult. Nevertheless, the last 12-18 months
have seen patronage growth well above long run averages,
almost certainly as a consequence of petrol price increases.
The national growth in rail patronage over the 12 months
from April 2005 to April 2006 was 4.2% (see Exhibit 20).
At the same time, petrol was on average 16-17% higher in
major cities. Even when the effect of the Commonwealth
Games is removed from the Melbourne rail figures, the
growth rate is still 9%. In Brisbane, total patronage (rail plus
other modes) is estimated to have grown by 11% for the
year to June 2006.14 Rail patronage in Sydney is likely to
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 15
EXHIBIT 17: RAIL CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS – SYDNEY AND MELBOURNE Peak Capacity and Utilisation
Perc
ent C
apac
ity
Note: *17 per hour in pm peakSource: The Age, ‘Melbourne’s Rail Network Fit to Bust’, Christie, R. ‘Long-term Strategic Plan for Rail’ (2001)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Away fromCity
TowardsCity
AntiClockwise
BondiTo City
BurnleyLoop
Clifton HillLoop
Clockwise City ToBondi
NorthernLoop
CaulfieldLoop
PresentCapacityUtilised
SpareCapacity
2221
20 13
22 22 22 15*
20
13
1716
20 18 18 18
13 13
18 18
Sydney (2004) Melbourne, City Loop (2004)
West/North Shore Line City Circle Eastern Suburbs Line
Trains per hour
EXHIBIT 18: MAJOR RAIL CAPACITY ENHANCEMENTS
14km Rail Link through the Sydney CBD, acrossSydney Harbour to Chatswood
$8bn
CBD Rail Link
Additional tracks and track extensions$1.6bnSEQIPP Gold Coastprojects
Gold Coast
New rail lines and track duplications$2.0bnSEQIPP Sunshine Coastprojects
Sunshine Coast
New rail lines, track duplications, metropolitanfreight upgrades. Rail crossing gradeseparations
$1.1bnSEQIPP GreaterBrisbane and WesternCorridor projects
Brisbane
Extra peak and late night services, new rollingstock and improved traffic systems
$1.8bnImproving Metro Trainand Tram services
Upgrading capacity on the City Loop andcongested lines
$2.0bnBoosting Melbourne’sRail Network
Melbourne
20km rail link from the main North Line toMungerie Park
8km rail link from Glenfield to the future centreof Leppington, via Edmondson Park
15 separate projects aimed at removingbottlenecks and enhancing capacity. Includesturnbacks, line duplication and stabling projects
Description
$1.5bn
Cost
North West Rail Link
South West Rail Link
Clearways
Title
Sydney
City
Source: NSW Department of Planning; Meeting Our Transport Challenges (VIC); SEQIPP (QLD)
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
16 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT 19A: MELBOURNE RAIL NETWORK 2020
Source: Systemwide Pty Ltd
EXHIBIT 19B: SYDNEY RAIL NETWORK 2020
Source: Systemwide Pty Ltd
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 17
EXHIBIT 19C: BRISBANE RAIL NETWORK 2020
Source: Systemwide Pty Ltd
EXHIBIT 20: PATRONAGE IMPACT OF FUEL PRICE RISESIncrease in rail patronage (Year to April 2006 vs Year to April 2005)
Annu
al G
rowt
h (p
erce
nt)
Sydney Melbourne Brisbane AdelaidePerth0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Source: Rail Operators; Motormouth
WeightedAverage
4.2%
17% 16% 16%17%16%Petrol pricegrowth (percent)
0.7
4.6
10
6.8
5.6
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
18 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
have been held back somewhat by reliability problems prior
to the introduction of the new timetable in September 2005.
This level of growth in patronage is in stark contrast to long
term patronage gains of just 1-1.5% p.a. over the last 20
years. Clearly, increasing petrol prices have caused a big
influx of patrons to public transport and to rail in particular.
This is consistent with trends observed in other low mode
share countries. In the US, public transport patronage
in the first quarter of 2006 increased by 4.25% over the
prior year.15
Such a rapid increase in public transport patronage has
profound implications for the speed with which system
expansion may be required if we are entering into an era
of sustained high oil prices. This is discussed further in
Section 2.2.
1.3.2 Poor Capacity Utilisation (off peak)
Outside of peak periods, mode share is quite low for most
operators. In order to maintain a base level of service
frequency in off peak periods (30 minutes to 1 hour
between service), rail, bus, tram and ferry operators run
many services at very low occupancy levels, particularly in
the outer suburbs. This means there is substantial capacity
available to be used (contra-peak, off peak, weekends) at
very low marginal cost, and with effectively no incremental
emissions. Better use of this available spare capacity is a
key opportunity for public transport systems.
1.3.3 Inadequate Service Coverage in the Outer Suburbs
Rail, tram and ferry networks largely serve central areas with
radial networks. In large outlying areas of our cities, much
of the population has no access to these transport modes,
and bus services are the only viable public transport option.
While benchmarks have been established for service levels
in some cities, large proportions of the population currently
experience service levels below these benchmark (see
Exhibit 21).
Lack of transport access significantly limits employment
opportunities in these outlying areas and contributes to
social exclusion, as discussed in Section 2.4 below.
EXHIBIT 21: SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKSService Level Benchmarks
Perc
enta
ge o
f Pop
ulat
ion
at B
ench
mar
k
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perth Sydney Melbourne
BenchmarkGoal
71
46
17**
20 min peak, 60 minoff-peak headway500m accessdistance
30 min headway800m accessdistance
30 min headway>
>
>>
>> Services from 5am
to midnight
Service Level Benchmarks*
Note: *Each city has defined its own Service Level Benchmark **Currie notes that recent data suggests this may be improving
Source: Prof. Graham Currie (Monash University). ‘Perspectives on Transport and Access Issues andYoung People’ Conference on Transport, Social Disadvantage and Well Being (April 2006)
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 19
1.3.4 Passenger and Freight Rail Interaction
Across some areas of urban rail networks, passenger and
freight trains share the same tracks. With both passenger
and freight traffic growing, there is increasing congestion
and insufficient train paths to satisfy demand. This is a
particular problem in Sydney where there are already
significant peak hour capacity constraints.
Significant money has already been committed in Sydney to
achieve partial separation. ARTC is constructing a dedicated
freight line to separate passenger and freight rail trains into
Southern Sydney. The access line, known as ‘The Southern
Sydney Freight Line (SSFL) Project’, should improve freight
reliability and travel times between Melbourne and Sydney
and Sydney and Brisbane. Additionally, the new rail line
should free up enough capacity to allow the equivalent of
an additional 36 commuter trains per day. However, further
investment will be required to better separate the passenger
and freight networks in Sydney (see Exhibit 22).
In the diagram, the black lines represent existing and
committed freight lines and the blue projects are part of the
Clearways program. The red, blue and purple projects would
further reduce interaction between freight and passenger
services in Sydney, but these are yet to be funded.
EXHIBIT 22: RAIL FREIGHT ENHANCEMENTS—SYDNEY METROPOLITAN AREA
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
20 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
1.3.5 Historical Public Transport Under-Funding
Historically the majority of Government transport
expenditure has been committed to roads rather than public
transport. As a consequence, we have among the highest
road metres per capita in the world (see Exhibit 23).
There have been several large passenger rail projects
over the last few years, few of which have provided any
material capacity expansions with the exception of the
Perth-Mandurah rail line. Most of the major projects that
have occurred, or are expected to start, achieve only modest
gains to their respective networks’ capacity. In fact, most
projects have added less than 2% of additional track to their
respective systems (see Exhibit 24).
As another illustration of under-funding, it is worth reviewing
the age and replacement rate of rollingstock over the last
five years (see Exhibit 25). Both Melbourne and Perth have
introduced new rollingstock over the last five years, but the
average age in Sydney is still 20 years. There have been
no new vehicles purchased in Brisbane during the last five
years and in Adelaide, the last new rail car entered service
in December 1996.
The Commonwealth Government provides no funding for
public transport. It provides Auslink funding for roads, with
a relatively small proportion allocated to freight rail and none
to passenger rail. While Auslink acknowledges that a more
integrated response to urban passenger transport is needed,
funding duties are left to the State and Local Governments,
“…The Australian Government’s position on public transport
is clear: it is primarily a State and Territory government
responsibility. State and Territory governments are best
placed to deal with the metropolitan and local complexities
of public transport…”16
Given the changes being experienced in fossil fuel
prices, their impact on household incomes, the growing
environmental pressure on vehicle emissions and the
negative impact that car generated congestion is having
on the economy, the Commonwealth’s position with regard
to its role in public transport should be reviewed. There
are a number of important roles that the Commonwealth
can play including co-ordinating actions across the many
levels of Government. The approaches adopted in COAG
in areas such as water, health and education provide some
precedent. If it fails to help, there is a high risk of substantial
deleterious economic and social impacts on Australia.
1.3.6 Impact of Road Congestion (Bus, Tram)
Greater numbers of private vehicles on our roads and
higher levels of traffic congestion negatively impact road
based public transport modes in terms of speed and
reliability. In Melbourne, Yarra Trams is facing significant
congestion problems because approximately 80% of the
tram network is shared with other vehicles. A recent review
reported that “…the available evidence shows that tram
speeds have been declining slowly over a number of years.
If this continues, it could adversely affect the productivity
of the tram system (by requiring a larger fleet to service
a given level of demand) and deter some people from
using trams…”.17
Bus operators in many cities report falling average bus
speed. In addition to the journey time and reliability impacts
on customers, slower journeys also raise costs as drivers
can complete fewer trips per shift. On major road corridors,
vehicle movement can be improved through the use of
dedicated priority bus lanes. There has already been some
significant investment in bus priority in some cities, but
there is plenty of scope for further bus-only zones. Other
measures that can reduce the impact on buses and trams
are traffic-light priority and car parking restrictions.
1.3.7 Low Cost Recoveries
Public transport places a significant cost burden on State
Treasuries. In any discussion about the future of passenger
transport, it is vital to understand the nature of the revenues,
costs and Government subsidies. Perhaps even more
important is to understand the main drivers of financial
performance and the extent that they can be altered.
The annual operating cost of public transport in our
five major cities is $4.9bn (see Exhibit 26). Fares from
passengers contribute around $1.6bn pa, but the shortfall
needs to be made up by Governments; taxpayers contribute
$3.3bn to annual operating costs. The overall cost recovery
(passenger revenues/operating costs) is therefore 32%.
These figures exclude significant capital works that are
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 21
EXHIBIT 23: LENGTH OF ROAD PER CAPITALength of Road Per Capita (2001)
Met
res
per c
apita
Mel
bour
nePe
rthBr
usba
neSy
dney
Oslo
Glas
gow
Gene
vaM
adrid
Chic
ago
Zuric
h
Dubl
inNe
wcas
tleRo
tterd
amCo
penh
agen
Hels
inki
Duba
iPr
ague
Vale
ncia
Rom
eAm
ster
dam
Turin
Buda
pest
Athe
nsBa
rcel
ona
Lond
onPa
risSa
o Pa
ulo
Brus
sels
Mun
ich
Vien
naBe
rlin
Krak
owSt
uttg
art
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Note: Australian figures from 1995Source: UITP Mobility in Cities database, L.E.K. Analysis
EXHIBIT 24: MAJOR RAIL PROJECTSExample Rail / Tram Infrastructure Projects Costs and Incremental Network Growth
Source: DOI; NSW Transport Infrastructure Development Corp.; Press Releases
State Project Name Status Cost($m) Scale Network Total % of Total
Vermont South tram extension Complete 22 3km 245km 1.2%
Box Hill Tram Extension Complete 28 2km 245km 0.9%
Clifton Hill and Westgarth Duplication Underway 52 1km 372km 0.2%
Craigieburn Rail Project Underway 58 10km 372km 2.7%
NSW Epping to Chatswood Underway 2,000 13km 2,060km 0.6%
WA Perth to Mandurah Underway 1,200 73km 101km 72.4%
VIC Sydenham Rail Electrification Start 2009 44 2km 372km 0.5%
Kingsgrove to Revesby Quadruplication Complete 2010 230 7km 2,060km 0.3%
Quakers Hill to Schofields Duplication Complete 2010 80 4km 2,060km 0.2%
North West Rail Link Start 2012 20km 2,060km 1.1%
South West Rail Link Start 2012 8km 2,060km 0.6%
CBD Rail Link Complete 2017 14km 2,060km 0.1%
Total Start 2012 8,000 38km 2,060km 1.8%
NSW
VIC
8,000
Completed or Currently Underway Projects
Future Projects
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
22 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT 25: AVERAGE AGE OF AUSTRALIAN METROPOLITAN ROLLING STOCK FLEETAverage age of rolling stock fleet
Aver
age
age
(Yea
ts)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Perth Adelaide
Source: Rail Operators
2000
200516
20 21
14
11
16
98
18
23
(RailCorp) (Connex) (QR) (PTA) (TransAdelaide)
EXHIBIT 26: TOTAL OPERATING COST AND FAREBOX FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTTotal Public Transport Operational Costs, Five Capital Cities (2005)
Billi
ons
of D
olla
rs
(6)
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
0
Note: Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane, and Adelaide; Operating costs exclude interest and depreciation chargesSource: Public Transport Operators
CostRecovery
= ~32%
~1.6
~3.3
~4.9
Operating Costs Farebox Subsidy required
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 23
EXHIBIT 27: OPERATING COST RECOVERYPublic Transport Operating Cost Recovery (2001)
Perc
ent
Source: Transport Operators; Mobility in Cities Database (2001)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Average
Hong
Kon
gDu
bai
Newc
astle
Man
ches
ter
Dubl
inKr
akow
Lond
onTu
nis
Graz
Buda
pest
Barc
elon
aCo
penh
agen
Athe
nsGl
asgo
wM
unic
hOs
loM
adrid
Stut
tgar
Vale
ncia
Lisb
onHe
lsin
kiM
osco
wSt
ockh
olm
Mar
seill
esBi
lbao
Vien
naBe
rnLi
lleW
arsa
wPa
risTa
llinn
Cler
mon
t-Fe
rrand
Berli
nCh
icag
oGe
neva
Mila
nRo
tterd
amNa
ntes
Amst
erda
mGe
ntPr
ague
Turin
Rom
eBr
usse
ls
Australia’s current (2005-06)cost recoveries range from
20% to 34%
EXHIBIT 28: POPULATIONS ENTITLED TO CONCESSION FARESConcession Population by Type, Victoria 2005
Perc
ent o
f Sta
te P
opul
atio
n
Pensionersand Seniors
PrimaryStudents
SecondaryStudents
TertiaryStudents
HealthCare
Total0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Source: ABS; Centrelink
1.2m
0.5m
0.4m
0.2m
0.4m 2.7m
Total Population of Victoria is 4.5 million
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
24 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
required to upgrade and expand transport systems, which
can add another $1-2bn p.a. or more over and above
operating costs.
Most public transport systems across the world require
significant government subsidies. The level of subsidy
depends upon a wide range of factors such as fare levels
and concession policies, city characteristics (population
density, topography), cost elements (labour, fuel), the
degree of modal competition, etc.
The cost recoveries of Australia’s major cities range from
20-34%. Some modes, particularly buses serving high
density routes, operate at higher cost recoveries and some
lower. Our cities compare poorly with the cost recovery
figures of many other international cities (see Exhibit 27).
While fare levels vary significantly around the world
(London’s public transport fares are notably higher than
most), there is no strong evidence that Australian fares
are particularly low by international standards. There are
some heavily discounted fares in some cities (e.g. some
long distance rail trips in Sydney) but overall Australian
cities are around the international average for fares. Fare
levels do not therefore appear to fully explain the low cost
recoveries observed.
Although fares do not appear to be the cause of low cost
recoveries across Australia, liberal concession policies are
a material factor. In Victoria, for example, approximately
50% of the population is entitled to concession tickets
(see Exhibit 28). Concession tickets are not only available
for pensioners and seniors, but they are also available
for students and health care beneficiaries. There are
strong policy grounds for offering discounted travel to
disadvantaged members of the population; however it is
perhaps questionable whether 50% of the population should
fall into this category.
Across modes, buses tend to sell the most concession
tickets with the proportion of concession trips ranging from
33% to 76%. Concession travellers on buses are mostly
students. Rail operators generally sell fewer concession
tickets, with the proportion of concession trips ranging
between 30% and 60%.
Concession discounts are quite significant as well
(Exhibit 29). The discount on concession tickets compared
to comparable full fare tickets range from approximately
50% to 100%. In Melbourne, a daily ‘zone one’ concession
ticket is discounted by 48%, whilst a concession ‘peak-rail’
return ticket in Sydney is discounted by 50%. Likewise,
Perth’s ‘2-zone’ concession ticket is approximately 58% less
than a comparable full fare ticket. In the most extreme case,
Perth’s Seniors Card allows seniors to ride for free on public
holidays and Sundays.
Whilst concession issues are a matter of policy for
Governments, they do substantially impact cost recovery.
In 2005, approximately $100 and $200 million of farebox
revenue was foregone in Melbourne and Sydney respectively
due to concession discounts (see Exhibit 30). High
concession proportions also contribute to the impression
that the public transport system is for the “down and outs”;
a system carrying 50% concession passengers is actually
reasonably representative of the population as a whole!
Currently, approximately 18% of Australia’s population is
60 years or older. By 2021, this proportion is expected
to increase to approximately 25%. If current concession
policies remain, public transport systems are likely to have
even lower levels of cost recovery.
1.3.8 Inefficient Work Practices
There is a mixture of public and private ownership of
the Australian public transport industry. Most of the rail
industry remains in public ownership, with RailCorp,
Queensland Rail, PTA WA and TransAdelaide all State-
owned. Melbourne’s metropolitan rail and tram services are
operated by Connex and Yarra respectively under franchise
agreements with the State Government.
In the bus industry there are several large public operators;
Sydney Buses, Brisbane Transport (owned by Brisbane City
Council) and ACTION in Canberra. All other bus operations
have either been contracted out to the private sector or have
always been privately owned.
Sydney Ferries is State-owned, but Brisbane Ferries is
operated by the private sector under contract. The light rail
in Sydney is privately owned.
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 25
EXHIBIT 29: EXAMPLES OF CONCESSION DISCOUNTSConcession Discounts for Selected Tickets by Australian City (2006)
Perc
ent D
isco
unt o
n Pr
ice
of C
ompa
rabl
e Fu
ll Fa
re Ti
cket
0
20
40
60
80
100
Daily Zone 1 60+Ticket(All day)
Peak Rail Return(10kms)
PensionerExcursion Ticket
(All day)
2-Zone travel Seniors Card(Sundays, Public
Holidays)
Melbourne Sydney (CityRail) Perth
Relative toZone 1 full-fare Daily
Relative toZone 1+2+3
full-fareDaily
Source: Transport websites
EXHIBIT 30: FAREBOX REVENUE FORGONE DUE TO CONCESSION POLICIESMelbourne Implied Farebox Foregone (2005) Sydney Implied Farebox Forgone (2005)
Mill
ions
of D
olla
rs
Mill
ions
of D
olla
rs
Source: DOI Victoria; RailCorp; L.E.K. Analysis
0
200
400
600
Farebox0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Farebox revenue lost toConcession tickets
195
830
~41% of ticketsare concession
~38% of ticketsare concession
INDICATIVE
ApproximateFarebox Revenue
Forgone due toConcession Tickets
2005 Farebox
ApproximateFarebox Revenue
Forgone due toConcession Tickets
2005 Farebox
108
418
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
26 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
There is limited quality benchmarking available across
companies and transport modes. High-level benchmarking
undertaken by L.E.K. Consulting for this study across rail
operators identifies some anomalies that warrant further
investigation. While it is inherently difficult to get like-for-
like comparisons between rail operators across a range of
metrics, Melbourne’s privately operated system appears
more efficient than most Government-owned systems in
terms of cost per passenger, although less so in terms of
cost per service kilometre (Exhibit 31).
Comparing public versus private bus operators reveals
a similar cost difference. For example in Sydney, the
Government owned operator (Sydney Buses) has
significantly higher costs than private operators. While some
of these differences can be ascribed to slower operating
speeds in central Sydney, this is not sufficient to account
for all of the difference (see Exhibit 32). This is consistent
with the findings of Prof. David Hensher who has observed
significant cost reductions when Government-run bus
services are contracted out to the private sector.18
The extent of inefficiencies in transport operations,
particularly publicly run operations, is unknown. However,
these simple benchmarks suggest that there is significant
scope for efficiency gains to free up recurrent funding that
could be better deployed on extra services or improved
facilities. Given that the total annual operating cost of
the public transport system in Australia is $4.9bn, every
1% efficiency saving is worth $49m p.a. For a number of
reasons, State Governments have faced structural barriers
to accessing these savings. There may be a role for the
Commonwealth Government in providing incentives that
help deliver these reforms.
1.4 Policy and Governance Challenges
1.4.1 Fragmented and Inconsistent Governance
Having the right (or least worst) governance structure is
essential for getting transportation optimised. There are
four areas in current governance arrangements that are not
working well today.
Responsibilities between Commonwealth, State and
Local Government
Exhibit 33 highlights the primary areas of responsibility
for transport-related matters across the different levels of
Government.
All the levels of Government play a role in road funding.
Freight policy is developed at both a Commonwealth and
State Government level. For roads and rail freight, the
Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS)
executes its policy and strategy tasks through Auslink, which
was created in May 2002. Additional planning for roads and
rail freight is carried out through the Australian Transport
Council’s rolling three-year strategic plan whose primary
focus is to develop reform platforms that are consistent
through all levels of government.
Metropolitan public transport systems are funded and
managed solely by State Governments; there is no federal
funding. Brisbane City Council, a major bus operator,
is the only LGA directly providing a significant city-wide
public transport service. Moreover, the Commonwealth
Government does not have any other significant role
in public transport, with regard to policy or planning.
By international standards it is unusual for a central
Government to have such a “hands off” role in public
transport. Indeed, Australia is the only OECD country
that does not have a national “moving people” strategy.
Many other Federal Governments centrally fund passenger
transport, including public transport. Neverthless, there
have been provisions in Federal law that enabled the
Federal Government to allocate funding to Urban Public
Transport projects if the Minister was satisfied that the
project would result in a reduction in traffic on arterial roads.
This provision was included in the Australian Land Transport
Development Act 1988 Section 7C.
Metropolitan transport and land planning is conducted both
at a State and Local Government level. This fragmentation of
policy and administrative responsibility means that decisions
made in one area can have significant positive or negative
ramifications in another area. For example, decisions
made on public transport and roads can affect other parts
of the transport network, impacting freight movements.
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 27
EXHIBIT 31: OPERATING COST METRICSOperating cost* per passenger Operating cost* per Service Kilometre
$ pe
r pas
seng
er
$ pe
r km
* Excluding depreciation and interestSource:Note:
Rail Operators
0
2
4
6
8
Syd
ney (
City
Rail)
Bris
bane
(Ci
tyTr
ain)
Ade
laid
e (T
rans
Adel
aide
)
Mel
bour
ne (
Conn
ex)
Per
th (P
TA) 0
10
20
30
40
50
Syd
ney (
City
Rail)
Bris
bane
(Ci
tyTr
ain)
Ade
laid
e (T
rans
Adel
aide
)
Mel
bour
ne (
Conn
ex)
Per
th (P
TA)
EXHIBIT 32: COST COMPARISON OF SYDNEY BUSES AND PRIVATE OPERATOR
%42.1
$/hr21.65
$/hr30.77
Bus Hourly Cost ElementWages
39.923.0
2,71613,977
3,80017,196
Non-busTotal capital cost
20.011,26113,396Bus%$/bus$/busCapital Costs
67.711.7819.76Bus overhead costs42.37.2410.30Other overhead costs108.64.549.47Salaries and on-costs
%$/hr$/hrBus overhead cost element
Bus Kilometre costOther bus kilometre costsWages and on-costsBus Kilometre Cost Element
Bus Hourly CostsWages on-costs
0.940.650.29$/km
37.166.38
Sydney Buses
0.620.490.13$/km
25.093.44
Private Operator
51.632.7123.1
%
48.185.5
Difference
Source: Ministerial Inquiry into Public Transport, NSW
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
28 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT 33: RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRANSPORT
Aviation
Freight rail
Passenger rail/bus/ferry *
Metropolitan Planning
Registration fees
Tax/User charges
Toll Roads
Maintenance
Funding
LocalStateCommonwealth
Road
s
Note: *Brisbane City Council provides bus services
EXHIBIT 34: NATIONAL FORUM FOR TRANSPORT
Australian Transport Council(ATC)
National Transport Commission(NTC)
Standing Committee on Transport(SCOT)
Transport Agencies Chief Executives(TACE)
SCOT AustralianPassenger Transport
Group (APTG)
SCOT SpecialWorking Groups
Other SCOT ModalGroups (Aviation,Maritime, Rail and
Road)
> Ministers
> TransportDepartment Heads
> Officials
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 29
Improvements in service levels on buses or ferries can
be hampered by old infrastructure at bus interchanges
or wharves, the responsibility for which typically lies with
Local Government.
The lack of national policy or guidelines for public transport
has a number of negative consequences; some are trivial,
but others are material. Each State implements land
use and transport policies that best suit their individual
circumstances. However, this approach has some
obvious limitations. There is no policy vehicle that links
(or even measures) public transport provision with social
disadvantage. Individual States are following different
approaches to toll roads, which directly affect traffic flows
and public transport use. Each State has adopted different
smartcard standards for new ticketing systems.
Given the changes being experienced in fossil fuel
prices, their impact on household incomes, the growing
environmental pressure on vehicle emissions and the
negative impact that car generated congestion is having
on the economy, the Commonwealth’s position with regard
to its role in public transport should be reviewed. There
are a number of important roles that the Commonwealth
can play including co-ordinating actions across the many
levels of Government. The approaches adopted in COAG
in areas such as water, health and education provide some
precedent. If it fails to help, there is a high risk of substantial
deleterious economic and social impacts on Australia.
Under-resourced National Forum
The current structure for coordinating Commonwealth
and State Government activities in public transport is
outlined in Exhibit 34:
The Australian Transport Council is composed of
Commonwealth and State Government Ministers. COAG will
refer matters of transport to the ATC for advice or resolution.
Reporting to ATC is the Standing Committee on Transport
(SCOT) comprised of the heads of transport departments,
and a number of SCOT modal groups and special working
groups. The Australia Passenger Transport Group (APTG)
is the group responsible for public transport matters.
This approach seems, at first sight, to have the
appropriate structure and scope to provide effective
national coordination for public transport. The terms of
reference for APTG (see Appendix C) indicates that this
organisation has the participation of the appropriate State
and Federal organisations (and some representation from
Local Government) and relevant roles, e.g. to lead the
development of national strategies for sustainable public
transport including identifying and clarifying the roles and
constitutions of the three levels of government.
However the APTG is under-resourced and is thus unable to
progress passenger transport issues of national significance
as quickly or thoroughly as required. APTG has minimal
staffing with most of the working groups staffed by people
who have other, full-time jobs within Commonwealth and
State departments. It meets every three to four months and
this, coupled with few dedicated staff, means slow progress
on most issues. Its decisions and recommendations are not
binding on Governments, and there is only representation
from the transport sector, not central agencies (Treasuries or
Premiers’/Cabinet departments) with a broader perspective.
By contrast, AustRoads demonstrates what can be
achieved with a well coordinated and funded national body.
AustRoads aims to be the Australasian leader in providing
high quality information and advice and fostering research
in the road sector. In 2003 some 35 national guides were
produced by AustRoads. Each describes best practices
in road development, management and planning19. Over
160 best practice guides are available from its website.
Divided Responsibilities at State Level
At the State level, too, there are instances of poor
coordination with mixed responsibilities for public transport
systems across various State Ministries and Departments
(see Exhibit 35). In some States, the responsibility for public
transport, roads, infrastructure and planning is spread
across three or even four ministers. Achieving consistency
in decision making across a number of these closely linked
portfolios is difficult when responsibilities are divided and
frequently changed.
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
30 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT 35: MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR TRANSPORT AND PLANNING
Public Transportation Roads Planning
NSW Minister for Trains
Infrastructure and Projects
QLD
SA
VIC
WA
Minister for Roads/Assistant Minister
for TransportMinister for PlanningMinister
for Infrastructure
Minister for Transport Minister for Planning
Treasurer and Minister forInfrastructure
Minister for Transport and Main RoadsMinister for Local
Government, Planning& Sport
Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy Minister of Urban Development & Planning
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Minister Major Projects
Source: Government websites
EXHIBIT 36: CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT ORGANISATIONS
Department ofInfrastructure
Connex
Yarra Trams
Private Buses
Ministry ofTransport
RailCorp
Sydney Buses
Sydney Ferries
Private Buses
QueenslandTransport
QueenslandRail
BrisbaneCity Council
PrivateBuses
Ferry
PublicTransportAuthority
Rail
Bus
Ferry
PrivateBuses
PublicTransportDivision
TransadelaideTrain
TransadelaideTram
PrivateBuses
VIC NSW QLD WA SA
CentralCustomer-facing Metlink None TRANSLink Transperth Adelaide Metro
Organisation
Government-owned Private
DedicatedTicketing
TransportTicketingAuthority
TcardAuthority
V/Line
Note: Metlink is 100 percent operator owned
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 31
Different Structures for Public Transport Functions
With regards to public transport, most States have a central
body that has responsibility for managing customer facing
issues (see Exhibit 36), e.g. system-wide marketing,
customer service, revenue collection, and in some cases,
contract management and route planning. Just as in
the departmental structures, responsibility areas differ
across these customer-facing organisations and dedicated
ticketing authorities. Sydney is to some extent now an outlier
without a central body responsible for ticketing, marketing,
modal integration and customer information. It is also the
only major capital city without integrated fares that allow
customers to transfer across modes without penalty. This
will be an on-going impediment to growing multi-modal
journeys until it is addressed.
1.4.2 Unfavourable Tax System (Fringe Benefits Tax)
There are taxation anomalies that provide perverse
incentives for transport. The current fringe benefits tax
system encourages the use of private transport over public
transport by effectively taxing use of company-owned
cars at a lower tax rate than public transport tickets (see
Exhibit 37). In fact, for company-owned cars, the more
kilometres driven per annum, the lower the effective
statutory fringe benefit tax rate becomes. While employer-
provided public transport tickets are always taxed at 48.5%,
the fringe benefits tax for cars can be as low as 7%. This
issue has been raised by a number of earlier reviews, but so
far the Commonwealth Government has chosen not to revise
the tax rates. In some other countries, Governments offer
tax breaks to employers or employees for the cost of public
transport tickets.
1.4.3 Approaches of Other National Governments
To contrast the “hands off” approach to passenger transport
by the Commonwealth Government in Australia, the policies
of the USA and Canadian governments were examined.
These two countries were selected because they, like
Australia, have three layers of government (Federal, State
and Local) and have some similarities in terms of urban
density, car dependence etc.
In the USA, the Federal Government has a direct role in
urban transport. It provides 25% of funding for passenger
transport, the other 75% coming from State and Local
Government.20 This funding is channelled through the
Federal Transit Administration, which receives 13% of the
total Department of Transport Budget. In 2007 the FTA will
have a budget of US$8.9bn, and funding has been growing
at around 8% annually.21 The FTA has considerable
discretion in how it allocates its funding. It supports a range
of different programs to address specific identified needs
(eg for the aged, or disabled or for non-urban areas). The
FTA supports State and Local Governments in planning and
project development, and also carries out a number of tasks
in public transport safety.
While it is not part of the FTA, the US Government
also funds the Transportation Research Board (TRB),
which is part of the National Research Council. It has
total funding of US$58m, of which $16m comes from
the Federal Government. The mission of the TRB is to
“promote innovation and progress in transportation through
research. The Board facilitates the sharing of information
on transportation practice and policy by researchers and
practitioners; stimulates research and offers research
management services that promote technical excellence;
provides expert advice on transportation policy and
programs; and disseminates research results broadly
and encourages their implementation.”22
The Canadian Government has historically had a much
smaller role in funding of public transport, but has recently
established two funds. The Canada Strategic Infrastructure
Fund seeks to establish partnerships between all levels
of Government and the private sector to invest in large
scale projects of national and regional importance.
Maximum Federal contribution is 50% of eligible costs.23
Investment categories include local transport infrastructure,
as well as other infrastructure categories (telecoms,
water etc). To date CDN$1.2bn has been invested in a
range of urban transport projects. In addition, the Green
Municipal Fund was established to stimulate environmental
projects by municipal Governments. This provides loans
of CDN$50-70m and grants of CDN$7-10m p.a.24 Finally,
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
32 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
there is a CDN$50m Enabling Fund for sustainable
community developments for transport and other projects.
In addition to funding, Transport Canada’s policy group
provide advice on how transportation policy issues fit within
the broader government agenda. In particular the role of
the policy group is to develop, recommend and coordinate
modal and multi-modal policies.
From the 1st July, 2006, public transit users across Canada
became eligible for a tax break on the cost of public transit.
To encourage individuals to use public transit, ease traffic
congestion in urban areas and improve the environment,
individuals can claim a non-refundable tax credit of 15.5%
for the cost of monthly or annual passes. As a result of
the transit tax credit, a transit user who spends $80 per
month on a transit pass could save about $150 for the year.
Individuals are also able to claim expenses on behalf of their
spouses and children.
These two country examples describe quite different
levels of Federal involvement in passenger transport. In
the case of the US, there is direct funding and assistance,
as well as planning support and, via TRB, research
and knowledge transfer. The Canadian Government is
providing some targeted support for infrastructure more
broadly, as well as tax breaks for public transport use
and some limited overall policy and coordination. Based
on either of these comparators, the involvement that the
Australian Commonwealth Government has in passenger
transport is insignificant. It also demonstrates that, were the
Commonwealth Government to take a more active role, a
number of mechanisms for participation would be possible,
not all requiring large funding commitments.
1.5 Concluding Remarks
In aggregate, this brief analysis presents a stark picture of
the current status of our public transport system. Significant
change will be required to deliver a vastly different level of
service to the community. One might reasonably ask “Why
bother?”. The next section deals with the case for more
focus and investment, and highlights some of the large
negative consequences of not doing so.
EXHIBIT 37: FRINGE BENEFITS TAX (CARS VS PUBLIC TRANSPORT)Statutory Percentages of FBT for Car vs PT By Annual Kilometres (2005)
Stat
utor
y FBT
Per
cent
age
Source: Australian Taxation Office
0
10
20
30
40
50
Public Transport 0–15k 15–25k 25–40k 40k+
Annual Kilometres Travelled
PT use is more highlytaxed than private
cars...
...encouraginggreater car use
Australia’s Public Transport System—Issues and Challenges
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 33
heading
The Case for Public Transport |Ch.2>
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 37
2.1 Congestion
Urban road congestion is brought about by overall
economic expansion, trends in freight movements, and
changes in the travel patterns of residents. It has been
estimated that approximately half of Australia’s total urban
vehicle kilometres travelled are currently performed under
congested traffic conditions.25 Congested road conditions
contribute to increased levels of air and noise pollution
and under, the most extreme cases, reduce a city’s urban
accessibility. Congested traffic conditions can reduce
the competitiveness of a city by impeding the flows of
people and freight and its ability to attract businesses
and skilled employees.22
Australian governments have recognised the problem of
congestion. In November 2005 the Victorian Government
requested the Victorian Competition and Efficiency
Commission to conduct an inquiry into managing transport
congestion, and a draft report was published in April 2006.
At a national level, the COAG Urban Congestion Review is in
progress. This is being managed by the COAG Competition
and Regulation working group, with the involvement of
Commonwealth, State and Local governments. The review
is scheduled for completion by December 2006.
For freight hauliers, congestion adds significantly to overall
transit costs through increased travel times, more late
deliveries, and overall reduced reliability. The greater
welfare of the community is also impacted by congestion.
Congestion not only makes ‘day-to-day’ trips difficult,
but it also increases the costs of access to destination
areas in terms of time spent travelling and higher vehicle
operating costs.
Public transport systems are capable of playing a significant
role in reducing road congestion. When public transport
systems have spare capacity, they not only have the ability
to move a large number of people in a short amount of
time, but their ability to do so is less expensive than cars
in terms of externality costs and the costs avoided from
increased congestion.
2.1.1 Drivers of Congestion
Across Australia, road use has been increasing, with road
freight transport experiencing the greatest growth in road
use (see Exhibit 38). Whilst the total network of roads (i.e.
road length) barely grew between 1998 and 2003, there
were substantial increases in vehicle registrations, licensed
drivers, motor fuel consumption, vehicle kilometres travelled
and road freight transport. In fact, vehicle kilometres
travelled increased by 16.8% and road freight transport
(measured in billion tonne kilometres) increased by 34.2%
during the same time.26
Increases in road use are primarily caused by economic
prosperity, which results in increases in freight movements,
population growth and higher rates of car ownership.
Freight Innovations and Just- In-Time Processes
Road freight innovations and travel have grown substantially
over the past decade due to Australia’s strong economy.
“Just-in-time” stocking policies are now the norm and many
The Case for Public Transport
There are four main reasons that greater focus on, and investment in, public transport is important right now. This chapter describes each of these in detail.
38 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
companies are outsourcing their transport and logistic
functions. Constant restocking has increased the number
of freight trucks on the road. To stay competitive, freight
companies must offer high service level frequencies to
customers. The changing freight task has increased the total
freight kilometres travelled within Australia’s capital cities by
an average of 4.8% per year between 2000 and 2005 (see
Exhibit 39).
Increases in road based freight movements have contributed
to greater road congestion. It is currently estimated that
freight vehicles make up approximately 19% of Australia’s
capital city traffic stream.27 Whilst heavy freight vehicles
(i.e. articulated trucks) carry approximately 77% of the
freight task in terms of tonne-kms, these vehicles are not
a major contributor to peak period congestion because
they tend to travel evenly throughout the day and most
of their kilometres are in non-metropolitan areas. They
are, however, affected by metropolitan congestion. Light
commercial vehicles, on the other hand, carry 4% of the
road transport freight task, but account for the vast majority
of freight vehicles and vehicle kilometres (as opposed to
tonne kms) (see Exhibit 40). They have been estimated to
represent 15% of the total metropolitan traffic stream.28
Moving forward, light commercial vehicle freight movements
are expected to continue to add to congestion because of
their relatively heavy weighting on the traffic stream. The
Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE)
estimates that from 2003 to 2020, the light commercial
vehicle task will grow by 3% per annum.
Increased private vehicle ownership and use is a further,
and very significant, driver of congestion. This is discussed
in some detail above in section 2.1.2.
2.1.2 Measures of Congestion
Congestion can be defined as the value of excess time and
other resource costs incurred by a vehicle and driver due
to traffic, over that which would have been incurred under
free-flow speeds. Economists often describe congestion as
a situation that develops when travellers do not bear the
full costs of their travel, including the costs imposed on
other users. A motorist entering a congested traffic stream
will not only incur higher vehicle operating costs and lost
time, but also increase the level of congestion incurred
by other motorists and hence impose costs on them. The
increase in total costs due to an additional driver entering
a traffic stream represents the marginal social cost of road
congestion. As more motorists enter a road space, the
rate at which congestion costs rise increases exponentially
because the average speed of traffic on the road slows at
an ever increasing rate.
There are several ways to measure the occurrence of
congestion. Austroads monitors both average travel speeds
and delays per kilometre to establish congestion levels
across Australia.
As shown in Exhibit 41, average travel speeds from 1999
to 2005 in the urban areas of New South Wales, Victoria
and South Australia all decreased during the morning
peak period. In the case of NSW substantial investment
in toll roads occurred over this period. These States, and
Queensland, also showed decreases in travel speeds during
the evening peak over the same time period.
Traffic delays have increased across Australia as well.
Measurement of delays (Exhibit 42) shows increasing
congestion in both morning and evening peaks for urban
areas in all States except WA. Based on this data, as well
as the perception of the travelling public, it seems clear
that congestion is getting worse in Australia’s largest
urban areas.29
2.1.3 Costs of Congestion
There are a number of ways to measure the costs of
congestion. Perhaps the simplest approach is to compare
observed traffic speeds with those that would have occurred
under free-flow traffic conditions. From this analysis, a
congestion penalty can be determined, comprising the
additional journey time, extra fuel consumed and additional
emissions generated.
The results of such analysis indicate that road congestion
is very expensive. It has been estimated that the cost of
time lost due to congestion is about 2% of GDP for the
OECD countries. If fuel and other costs are included,
the cost of congestion approaches 3% of GDP.30 Costs
The Case for Public Transport
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 39
EXHIBIT 38: ROAD USE TRENDSTotal Australia Indicators of Road Use (1998–03)
Perc
ent i
nc re
ase
0
10
20
30
40
Road Length Population VehicleRegistrations
LicensedDrivers
Motor FuelConsumption
Vehicle KMsTravelled1
Road FreightTransport2
Source: Austroads, Road Facts 2005
1.2
5.3
9.1 9.3
15.316.8
34.2
EXHIBIT 39: URBAN ROAD FREIGHTTotal Freight Kilometres Travelled, Within State Capital Cities (2000–05)
Billi
ons
of K
M
Source: ABS Survey of Motor Vehicle Use
22
19191818
17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 01 02 03 04 05
CAGR%(2000–05)
Total 4.8
The Case for Public Transport
40 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT 40: ROAD FREIGHT ACTIVITY BY VEHICLE TYPEVehicle Share of Road Freight (2004)
Perc
ent
Projected growth(tonne km)2003-2020
4.3% pa
1.3% pa
3.0% pa
Rigid
LightCommercialVehicles
Note: Vehicles with a mass of up to 3.5 tonnes are classified as Light Commercial Vehicles. Vehicles with a massgreater than 5.5 tonnes are classified as Rigid Trucks
Source: ABS, Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, October 2004; BTRE, Freight Measurement and Modelling in Australia, March 2006
Articulated
0
20
40
60
80
100
Billions of Tonne Millions of Vehicles Billions of Vehicleskm km
121.2
341.9
6.07.6
0.10.4
29.8
6.6
157.7 2.4 47.7
EXHIBIT 41: AVERAGE TRAVEL SPEEDS IN PEAK HOURAverage Travel Speed, Urban Areas (1999 and 2005)Morning Peak Evening Peak
KM/H
our
KM/H
our
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
N S W V IC Q L D W A S A0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
N S W V IC Q L D W A S A
1999
2005
Source: Austroads
1999
2005
The Case for Public Transport
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 41
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
N S W V IC Q L D W A S A0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
N S W V IC Q L D W A S A
EXHIBIT 42: DELAY TIMESMinutes of Delay per KM Travelled, Urban Areas (1999 and 2005)Morning Peak Evening Peak
Min
utes
/KM
Min
utes
/KM
Source: Austroads
1999
2005
1999
2005
EXHIBIT 43: COST OF CONGESTIONCongestion Costs as a % of GDP1 (2001 Estimate)
Perc
ent
0
1
2
3
4
5
Australia2 United States Western Europe Korea3 OECD Average4
~2.6
Note: 1 For Australia, The BTE states that congestion measures the cost of lost time and “other resources”.2 The BTE estimated congestion costs in Australia for 1995 and 2015. The 2001 congestion cost was determined by applying a linear growth
3 1997 Estimate;4 2003 Estimate
rate. This congestion cost was converted to 2001 dollars and divided by Australia’s GDP for 2001; 3 1997 Estimate; 4 2003 Estimate
Source: Australian statistics from BTE Information Sheet 14; ABS; Statistics from other countries from Deloitte Research’s paper Combating Gridlock
~1.5~1.9 ~2.0
Congestion Cost(Billions)
~$16.5
~4.4
~3.0
Congestion cost isapproximately 3% of GDP
when fuel is added
The Case for Public Transport
42 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
vary considerably from one country to another; estimates
show that congestion in the United States costs about
1.5% of GDP compared with 4.4% of GDP for Korea
(see Exhibit 43).31
There have been a number of measures of the costs
of congestion in Australia.32 The Bureau of Transport
Economics (BTE) estimated congestion costs for Australia’s
six largest cities to be about $13 billion in 1995 and rising
to almost $30 billion by 2015 (Exhibit 44). More recently,
the Centre for International Economics analysed congestion
costs in Sydney, suggesting that the cost would rise from
$12 billion in 2005 to over $16 billion by 2020.
Exhibit 44 also describes the estimated cost of congestion
on freight. In Australia, the BTE estimates that freight
vehicles bear approximately 25% of the total cost of
congestion, or approximately $3 billion in 1995, rising
to $7.5 billion in 2015.33
It should be acknowledged that the congestion costs used
above are measures of the total cost of congestion, i.e.
the cost relative to that under conditions of free-flowing
traffic. In practice, this is an upper limit since as the level
of congestion that is acceptable is likely to be much higher
than that of free-flowing traffic.
2.1.4 Implications of Congestion
Business
Road congestion adversely affects business productivity
across Australia. Poor on-time deliveries by freight haulers
have created a higher operating cost environment for
businesses on the receiving end of freight deliveries.
In VCEC’s 2006 report on congestion, the cost of delay
per hour to businesses receiving goods was estimated
at, “…$21 per hour for light commercial vehicle use,
to nearly $450 per hour for heavy freight vehicles…”17.
To compensate for unreliable services, businesses are
reverting to less efficient production scheduling processes
and keeping higher inventory levels than would otherwise
be recommended under ‘just-in-time’ practices. This is
especially the case for deliveries with perishable goods,
deliveries of goods that are difficult to warehouse, and
deliveries of goods that are subject to rapid changes in value.
Aside from bearing high congestion costs, freight companies
are also facing additional operating costs as a result of
congestion. In order to increase delivery reliability, freight
companies have started to add vehicles and drivers to their
fleet in order to extend hours of operation and compensate
for longer travel times. This has resulted in freight haulers
with higher unit costs.34
Lastly, businesses suffer when employees face long
commuting times or delays. Additional time spent
commuting eats into either work or personal time, directly
or indirectly affecting employee productivity.
The full economic cost of road congestion may not be
included in the measurement approaches used by
Austroads and other agencies.
Social Costs of Congestion
Long commuting times in cars can also cause stress
(sometimes expressed as “road rage”), increased social
isolation, reduced productivity at work and loss of time
available for family and community life.
According to research by the Australia Institute,35 about one
in three Sydney fathers in full-time work, with children under
15 years, spend an average of eight hours and 17 minutes a
week travelling to work but only three hours and 44 minutes
with their children.
Public Transport Operators and Other
Metropolitan Factors
Road congestion also affects some public transport
operations, viz. tram and bus companies, in terms of
average vehicle speed and on-time performance. This was
discussed previously in section 1.3.6.
2.1.5 Possible Solutions to Congestion
There are a number of approaches that have been adopted,
or which are under active consideration, to manage road
congestion, i.e. to reduce it to “acceptable” levels. Most
of these approaches rely on changing demand for travel
(the number of trips, the mode, the timing of the trips,
etc.), although there are some supply-side initiatives that
warrant consideration.
The Case for Public Transport
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 43
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a broad term
covering a range of mechanisms that, in the simplest way,
share a common objective, namely to limit or discourage
car use particularly in peak hours. There are other broader
definitions of TDM, such as that of Litman who defines
TDM as “a general term for strategies and programmes
that encourage more efficient use of transport resources
(road and parking space, vehicle capacity, funding, energy,
etc.)”.36 It is useful to consider these methods in six
categories suggested by the Washington State Department
of Transport.37
1. Support for alternative modes; generally government or
employer-sponsored programs to encourage the shift to
public transport
2. Employer-initiated programs, to encourage employees to
change their commuting patterns
3. Land use planning; use of government planning tools to
change travel patterns
4. Programme and policy support; the use of range of non-
price mechanisms, e.g. regulations, to ration the use of
congested roads
5. Telecommunications; the use of telecommunications
(e.g. teleworking) as an enabler to change travel patterns
6. Pricing; the use of price tools to change traveller’s
behaviour
These approaches are discussed in some more detail
below, but it should be noted that a comprehensive
program of TDM is likely to incorporate a combination
of these methods.
Support for Alternative Modes
An essential feature of this approach is public education and
promotion necessary to effect behavioural change. Specific
initiatives can include support for non-motorised travel
(cycling and walking), promotion of the health benefits,
supply-side initiatives such as dedicated bike paths and
cooperation with special interest groups (such as Bicycle
EXHIBIT 44: AUSTRALIAN CONGESTION COSTSAustralia’s Congestion Cost by Vehicle Type1 “Cost of Lost Time”
Billi
ons
of D
olla
rs
Note: 1 BTE estimated congestion costs in Australia for 1995 & 2015. This was computed by applying a uniform congestion cost rate to total kilometrestravelled by each vehicle type (Congestion rate for Rigids was applied 2x for every kilometre and for Articulated 3x for every kilometre)
Source: BTE Information Sheet 14; BTCE Congestion Report 1996
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1995E 2015E
CAGR%(1995-15)
4.2
5.04.6
5.2
4.0
Total
ArticulatedRigid
LightCommercialVehicles
PersonalVehicles
The Case for Public Transport
44 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
Organisations). Promoting and developing extra capacity
for park-and-ride is another way to encourage mode shift,
particularly for outer suburban commuters. A variant of
mode shift is the use of van pools, where a group (typically
seven to fifteen) commute together on a regular basis in a
van. The vehicle is driven by one of the commuters and is
generally rented or leased from private sector companies.
Alternatively it can be a van used for business purposes
during the day, and for transport morning and evening.
This is considerably cheaper than the cost of single car
travel. In addition, some transport authorities allow such
vehicles to travel in special road lanes (High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) lanes), with an associated benefit of reduced
travel time. This is not strictly public transport, but certainly
provides some of the benefits (reduced congestion, lower
per capita travel costs, reduced pollution per capita) of
public transport. It is perhaps worth repeating that an
implicit assumption of alternative mode support, and all the
other TDM measures, is that there must be a real, attractive
public transport alternative for travellers to shift use.
Employer Initiated Programs
There is much that employers can do to change entrenched,
car-based commuting patterns. Perhaps the simplest is to
offer alternative or variable work hours that allow employees
to avoid travelling in prime peak hours. The benefits can
be manifested in two ways, (1) the employee can travel to
and from work by public transport and gain some benefits
(less crowding, more likelihood of a seat, off-peak fares) as
does the public transport system in terms of increased peak
capacity, or (2) the employee can travel by car outside the
peak, with reduced transit times, reduced congestion and
decreased vehicle emissions.
Employees can also assist with ride-matching or ride-
sharing services, essentially a variation of vanpooling or car
sharing which is based at a single workplace. An extension
of the single work-site approach is that provided by Travel
Management Associations (TMAs), which can be described
as private, member-controlled organisations that provide
transport services in a particular geographical area such
as a town centre, an industrial estate, new development
or public transport corridor.38
The advantages of TMAs are that they can offer scale
advantages (and greater cost effectiveness), accountability
and a focus for change. They are usually set up on a not-for-
profit basis and their directors often include representatives
of local government, transport operators and the business
community. There are more than 150 TMAs in the USA and
they are being introduced into the UK.
Property owners and developers also have a role, most
obviously in the provision of work-site amenities such as
bike racks, showers and lockers for cyclists, walkers and
runners. Given the low economic yield of car parking space
(relative to retail, commercial or industrial space) it is in
developers interest to minimise the number of necessary car
parks by encouraging vanpooling, ridesharing and similar
initiatives (by, for example, offering undercover or otherwise
privileged parking).
Land Use Planning
An effective, although necessarily longer term, approach
is to use controls, i.e. planning for land use, to make explicit
consideration of transport needs. Planning authorities’
decisions on urban population density, on the mix of land
use and on the resulting urban design can affect travel
patterns. As discussed earlier, higher population densities
favour both public transport alternatives to private cars
and also the nearby development of related services,
e.g. schools, shops, community and health centres.
Urban design considerations are also important, and
planning authorities can, and should, encourage bike
and walking paths for commuters and school children in
particular, and appropriate access to transport facilities,
including park-and-ride.
Effective land use planning requires both good policy and
more importantly, incentives for implementing the policy at
all levels of Government. For example, it is one thing to set a
good policy about parking or urban infill, it is another to see
this actually delivered through completed developments at
a local level. This requires significant political will to achieve
and sometimes comes at a cost to individual stakeholders
(e.g. landowners and developers).
The Case for Public Transport
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 45
Programme and Policy Support:
The most obvious of these strategies are those that
encourage vanpooling and ride-matching, such as the
declaration (and enforcement) of HOV lanes and priority
parking for such pooling arrangements. Other actions which
can discourage single car use are reducing (or eliminating)
road-side parking and declaring certain streets off-limits
for private vehicles. Another approach that has been tried
with some success is the use of trip reduction programs,
generally directed at large employers and developers
in congested areas to help them (through a range of
incentives and controls) to encourage mode shift or a
reduction in car trips. An example of this is the program
undertaken in Washington State, USA (the Washington State
Commuter Trip Reduction Legislation). Between 1993 and
1998 this indicated a reduction of 1 to 4% in regional
vehicle miles travelled and up to 8% in the use of single
occupied vehicles.39
Telecommunications
This category could perhaps be regarded as an “enabler”
for the other approaches discussed above, viz. that greater
use of telecommunications can reduce, or change the
demand for, travel. Some examples of this would be the use
of broadband-based internet to allow employees to work
from home (“telework”) and for householders to shop from
home (“teleshop”). Another is providing access to detailed,
real-time information on travel conditions and congestion
(on road and public transport networks) and on timetables
so that travellers can make rational solutions. However,
it should be noted that the evidence for the impact of
telecommunications is not conclusive. Moreover, there is
little that governments or specifically arms of government
responsible for transport and land use planning, can do to
affect the use of teleworking or teleshopping.
Pricing
There are many ways to provide financial incentives (or,
perhaps more likely, disincentives) to encourage changes
in travel behaviour. Subsidies for vanpooling are clear
examples of providing an incentive, but ones which must
be funded, generally by an arm of government. The range
of disincentives is also clear, covering, for example, the
imposition of additional taxes on automotive fuel and raising
the price of both on-street parking and commercial car
parks. Road (or congestion) pricing, which seeks to set the
cost of transport closer to the full (economic and social) cost
is a topic which merits further analysis and is discussed
more fully below.
Passenger Transportation Demand Management—
Application
Travel Demand Management (TDM) features as a
component in most States’ metropolitan transportation
strategies. Governments generally recognise the arguments
for TDM and have made some broad policy objectives.
Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to say that, despite the
good intentions, there has not been much real progress.
There has, for example, been little or no effort placed
on encouraging vanpooling or ride-matching, and, with
the exception of the VCEC inquiry into congestion, the
consideration of road pricing seems to be a long way
off. This reflects, in part, the real political difficulties of
implementing change.
On the other hand, the TravelSmart programs have shown
promising returns in Perth and Melbourne. The TravelSmart
program educates people in their homes, work places,
schools and universities about environmentally sustainable
ways to travel, in particular directed at reducing single
vehicle occupancy travel.
An example of a more comprehensive approach is that of
Washington State’s Commuter Trip Reduction (CTR) Law.
This combined elements of three strategies discussed
above, viz. alternative mode support, worksite change and
telecommunications. It involves collaboration between
local jurisdictions and employers, under which the State’s
nine most populated counties were required to adopt
CTR and support local employers in implementing CTR.
Programs include:
> Subsidies for transit fees
> Flexible work schedules
> Telework opportunities
The Case for Public Transport
46 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
The results of the program were encouraging. The
proportion of single occupancy commuters dropped from
70.8% in 1993 to 65.7% in 2005. The Washington State
Authorities estimate the overall benefit of 20,000 fewer car
trips each weekday, with the resulted annual reduction
of 5.8 million gallons of fuel consumed, of 74,000 tons
of GHG emissions and 3,700 tons of other air pollutants.
A significant reduction in traffic congestion in the morning
peak was also noted (almost 12% across the region).40
Implementation of Road Pricing Schemes
This section describes different approaches to road pricing,
which can be broadly defined as charging a fee (or imposing
a financial cost) on road users for driving on a specific
section of road or on roads in a specified area. There are
a number of ways for categorizing road pricing schemes41
and the table below provides a common categorisation
(see Exhibit 45).
It should be noted that there are some variations in
definition, i.e. sometimes a distinction is made between a
cordon charge (i.e. one imposed for entering a specified
area) and an area-based charge which is imposed for
driving within a specified area. It is also important to notice
the distinctions in objectives in the table, between reducing
congestion and raising revenue. For the purposes of this
study, the discussion will be largely confined to road pricing
aimed at reducing the congestion, i.e. congestion pricing
and cordon fees.
The rationale for road pricing is simple, namely to set
the price for travelling on roads so that it reflects the full
economic costs, including congestion, environmental and
health effects. Road users, it is argued, can only make
economically rational decisions when faced with the full
cost of the various options, including travel by private car.
It should be noted that some of the externality costs (such
as health effects) are likely to vary proportionally with
distance travelled, but congestion costs do not since they
are very dependent on time and location, e.g. the inner-
city, morning commuter peak. Accordingly, many cities are
investigating the potential use of time-and-location-based
charging schemes using on-vehicle transponders and
remote, automated recording equipment.
Despite this enthusiasm and the (apparent) availability
of suitable technology, there have been no full-scale
implementations of such fully-variable congestion pricing,
although some are planned. There have been five
fully operational road pricing schemes that have been
evaluated, those in London, Europe, Singapore and three
Norwegian cities.
The main conclusions from the evaluation were that the
London scheme was most successful in that the volume
of road traffic declined materially. There was a substantial
increase in public transport usage and bus service quality
improved because of reduced road congestion. There
did not seem to be any damage done to the economy of
London (the impact was broadly neutral) and the attitude
of the business community and the general public living in
and near London was significantly more positive after the
scheme was introduced than it was beforehand. It seems
reasonable to conclude that the Singapore program was
successful in increasing mode shift to public transport, but it
was difficult to draw conclusion about more recent initiatives
such as fully automated charging technology and changes
to charges and hours. The impact of the initiatives in the
three Norwegian studies was, in contrast, relatively minor.
A full analysis is available.42
Other price-based approaches have been tried in the USA.
These generally involve employing financial incentives
to manage freeway traffic congestion and have been
briefly evaluated.43 In general, it appears that the various
approaches have had some meaningful impact on
travel patterns.
It can be concluded that there are a range of measures that
can be used to manage road congestion and that pricing
is a tool worthy of serious consideration. However, it seems
clear that (1) there is no “silver bullet”, (2) city-specific
solutions are required, (3) a mix of price and non-price
measures is generally required and (4) the practical and
political complexities should not be underestimated.
Supply Side Policies
There are a number of supply side initiatives that can
complement the various TDM options outlined above.
These include:
The Case for Public Transport
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 47
EXHIBIT 45: TYPES OF ROAD USE PRICING
To raise revenue and reduceimpacts of vehicle use
A vehicle use fee based on how many miles a vehicle isdriven
Distance-based fees
To favour HOVs compared with ageneral-purpose lane, and toraise revenues from singleoccupancy vehicles using theHOT lanes
A high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lane that accommodateslower-occupant vehicles for a fee
Highoccupancytoll lanes
(HOT)
To reduce congestion in majorurban centres
Fees charged for driving in a particular areaCordon fees
To raise revenue and reducetraffic congestion
A fee that is higher under congested conditions thanuncongested conditions, intended to shift some vehicletraffic to other routes, times and modes
Congestionpricing (time
variable)
To raise revenueA fixed fee for driving on a particular roadRoad toll(fixed rates)
Description Objectives
Source: Making the Right Choices: Options for Managing Transport Congestion; VCEC, April 2006
EXHIBIT 46: PROJECTED OIL PRICESProjected Oil Prices (2005–2010 Estimate)
Oil P
rice
(US$
/bar
rel)
Source: Monthly Oil Survey (2006): International Energy Agency
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2005 06E 07E 08E 09E 10E
CAGR%(2005–10E)
12.9
The Case for Public Transport
48 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
> provision of more, and more secure, parking facilities
near railway stations generally and of specifi c park-and-
ride facilities in particular
> development of bike paths and dedicated road lanes to
encourage more cyclists; and
> creation of more bus lanes and HOV lanes on motorways
Such initiatives are particularly important for achieving the
desired outcomes and reducing negative sentiment.
In summary, there are many possible approaches for
tackling congestion, and a combination of strategies is
going to be required to avoid the negative economics
consequences of growing congestion in our cities. Strategies
that reduce the amount of travel will have neglible impact
on the demand for public transport. However those
strategies that seek to change use of modes, as in London,
require that the public transport systems are capable of
dealing with the influx of patrons that occurs. Investment
in public transport alone will not ease congestion, but it
will be an essential part of implementation of many of the
strategies that will.
2.2 Fuel Use and Related Effects
In Australia, crude oil prices have increased significantly in
recent years (of the order of 19% per year in nominal terms
between 1998 and 2004).44 While there is considerable
disagreement about the future direction of oil prices, some
commentators believe that oil prices will rise further in the
future (see Exhibit 46).
This increase in the price of fuel has led to
significant increase in usage of public transport, as
described previously.
Analysis from Germany indicates the effect of fuel price
changes on transport usage. As Exhibit 47 indicates, rising
fuel prices caused a significant modal shift from car to
public transport for the school and work commuting tasks.
The other notable observation is that leisure and holiday
traffic declined, but with much less modal shift.
Recent work by Professor Graham Currie of Monash
indicates that a rise of 10% in fuel prices appears to
generate an increase of 4.5% in heavy rail use (a cross
elasticity of 0.45).45 The results for bus and trams were
lower. It also suggests that elasticity in peak periods may be
higher again. If these relationships continue to hold as fuel
prices rise, this will place significant additional demand on
public transport, and on rail in particular.
Public transport, and rail in particular, is vastly more fuel
efficient than private cars. This is illustrated in Exhibit 48.
It is important to note that the impact of high fuel prices falls
disproportionately on those in the outer metropolitan areas
(Exhibit 49).
Fuel price rises will compound the economic problems of
those in outer metropolitan areas. Many marginal seats are
located on the outskirts of cities in the so-called mortgage
belt and play a crucial role in deciding federal elections.
People in these areas are vulnerable to both interest-rate
and fuel rises46.
In short, increased use of public transport is a sensible
alternative to private car transport under conditions of high
fuel price. However, this is likely to require (1) increased
system capacity to handle those who switch modes, and (2)
new services for suburbs, particularly in outer metropolitan
areas, that are at present poorly served by public transport.
This is discussed further in Section 2.4 below.
2.3 Environment and Health
There is now widespread acceptance that average global
temperatures are rising and that human-generated CO2
emissions are the cause. Policy makers around the world
have largely accepted the scientific evidence, and are
actively debating and or implementing measures to reduce
carbon emissions and avoid the more catastrophic impacts
of global warming. Australia accounts for 1.5% of global
CO2 emissions, but has one of the highest overall rates of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per capita, as indicated
in Exhibit 50.
Similarly it has high per capita emissions for transport
activities, as indicated in Exhibit 51.
Australian GHG emissions from transport grew by 16%
between 1990 and 2000 and are expected to grow about
seven times the overall rate up to 2020.47
The Case for Public Transport
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 49
EXHIBIT 47: FUEL PRICE ELASTICITYElasticities of Automobile and Public Transport Trips to a 10% increase in Fuel Price in Germany (1995)
(25) (20) (15) (10) (5) 0 5 10 15 20 25
OverallHolidayLeisure
ShoppingBusiness
SchoolWork
OverallHolidayLeisure
ShoppingBusiness
SchoolWork
Percentage Change in Number of Trips
Source: Storchman, K. The impact of fuel taxes on public transport- an empirical assessment for Germany (2000)
Automotive
Public Transport
EXHIBIT 48: ENERGY USE BY MODEEnergy Use per Passenger Kilometre, Australia and New Zealand 1995
Note: 1 Estimate comes from 1999 and comes from a measure of energy efficiency in urban areasSource: PATREC – Transport Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases in Urban Passenger Transport Systems; Sustainable Transportation and Global
Cities by Peter Newman, CES, Commuter Transport
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
PrivateTransport
PublicTransport
Bus Tram Suburban Rail Car
2.9
0.50.4
1.7
0.9
2.6
MJ o
f ene
rgy /
pass
. KM
The Case for Public Transport
50 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT 49: FUEL PRICE SENSITIVITYEffect of Change in Petrol Prices on Weekly Fuel Spend on Work Travel by Individual (2006)
Dolla
rs
0
10
20
30
40
Melbourne Outer Suburbs Melbourne Inner City
Note: *Assuming average fuel price of 119c/LSource: ‘Transport and Liveability—The Path to a Sustainable Victoria (PTUA), ABS, Motormouth
Weekly petrolcost at currentprices*
Weekly petrolcost at 20%higher fuel prices
INDICATIVE
EXHIBIT 50: PER CAPITA GREENHOUSE EMISSIONSGreenhouse Gas Emissions/Capita (Selected Countries) (2002)
Mill
ions
of T
onne
s CO
2 Equ
ival
ent p
er C
apita
Source: UN Statistical Data Centre
0
5
10
15
20
25
30 Australia
Australia
OECD members
Non-OECD countries
The Case for Public Transport
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 51
EXHIBIT 51: TRANSPORT EMISSIONSTransport CO2 Emissions per Capita (1990)
KG/p
erso
n
Note: 1 Peter Newman report uses Toronto instead of Canadian cities because Toronto is most like the cities inthe other counties listedSource: Sustainable Transportation and Global Cities by Peter Newman
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
US Australia Toronto1 Europe Wealth Asian Dev. Asian
EXHIBIT 52: EMISSIONS BY SOURCESources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Australia (2004)
Perc
ent
Source: Australian Greenhouse Office, “Australian Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2004”; BTRE, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Australian Transport”
0
20
40
60
80
100
All Greenhouse Gas Emmissions Transport Greenhouse Gas Emmissions2
Stationary Energy
Agriculture
Transport
Industrial ProcessesFugitive Emissions
Land UseWaste
Cars & Motorcycles
Trucks
Civil Aviation Shipping
Rail
Buses
The Case for Public Transport
52 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT 53: MORTALITY AND MORBIDITYAssociated Mortality in Australia Associated Mortality1 in Australiadue to Motor Vehicle Air Pollution (2000) due to Motor Vehicle Air Pollution (2000)
Mor
talit
y Est
imat
e
Mor
bidi
ty E
stim
ate
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
N S W V IC Q L D S A W A
Note: 1 Morbidity includes cardio-vascular disease, respiratory disease, and bronchitisSource: BTRE Estimates (Health Impacts of Transport Emissions in Australia, published by DOTARS)
CapitalCity
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
N S W V IC Q L D S A W A
Capital City
NonCapitalCity
NonCapitalCity
EXHIBIT 54: AIR POLLUTANT EXPOSUREExposure to Air Pollutants by Commuting Mode, Sydney Sample Pool1 (2004)
Parts
per
Bill
ion
0
20
40
60
80
100
Car Bus Cycle Train Walk
Note: 1 A sample of 44 participants who commuted to work using one of the five modes of transportwas recruited for the study. Participants were required to travel for a minimum of 30 minutesand follow specific instructions when using the BTEX sampler tube and NO2 (Nitrogen dioxide) sampler
Source: Health Promotion Journal of Australia 2004, Air Pollution Exposure for Five Commuting Modes
NO2
XylenesEthylbenzene
Toluene
Benzene
The Case for Public Transport
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 53
Private motor vehicles comprise the largest single source
of transport-related GHG emissions (Exhibit 52). In this
context, it should be noted that the lower GHG emissions
of public transport reflects its greater fuel efficiency (see
Exhibit 48 above).
It should also be noted that fuel combustion (i.e. electricity
generation) and transport are two major groupings of
GHG emissions where (1) there are some degrees of
freedom for government to act, and (2) some prospects
of making short-medium term reductions through energy
efficiency and behavioural change. Reductions in GHG
emissions in agriculture and industry are likely to be more
difficult to achieve and come with significant, negative
economic impact.
GHG reduction initiatives in transport can focus on fuel
economy and on voluntary agreements with industry to
improve vehicle efficiency. The introduction of fuel taxes or
road pricing designed to reduce emissions (and congestion)
could provide new funds to be re-invested in growing the
capacity of public transport systems.
Ambient air pollution caused by motor vehicles is also a
major health problem. As Exhibit 53 illustrates, in 2000
such pollution was the cause of an estimated 2,700 cases of
morbidity and an estimated 1,400 cases of premature death.
The main causative factors were cardio-vascular problems,
bronchitis and other respiratory diseases.
Not surprisingly, the impact of this pollution was much
greater in the capital cities. The cost of the death and
disease that can be attributed to motor vehicle pollution
is very significant, of the order of AU$2.9 to AU$3.9billion
in 2000.48 Of this amount, just over 70% is due to
mortality effects.
A switch to public transport would have beneficial health
outcomes. The results of a recent study in Sydney illustrates,
(Exhibit 54), exposure to air pollution is lowest for train travel
and significantly lower for cyclists and walkers. Bus travellers
shared overall exposure levels similar to car travellers,
although with lower levels of volatile organic compounds.
In addition to less pollution exposure, public transport also
helps promote a healthier lifestyle. Taking public transport
requires more physical activity at the beginning and end of
a trip than does private motor vehicle use. public transport
or cycling to work is a good way to obtain regular exercise,
the benefits of which include a 50% reduction in the risk of
developing a coronary heart disease, the risk of developing
adult diabetes and the risk of becoming obese.49
Physical inactivity is associated with high direct health costs
which are conservatively estimated at around $400 million
per year in Australia. Additionally, diseases of inactivity are
now the biggest killer of women and second only to smoking
for men.50
There are a wide range of studies that estimate the costs of
transport modes, incorporating one or both of direct costs
or externalities. Three examples of such comparisons are
shown in Exhibit 55, 56 and 57. Calculating the full cost
of the externalities is complex, and will differ significantly
between countries and cities. While the magnitude of cost
estimates in the diagrams below differ significantly, in each
case the full cost of private car use is substantially higher
than that of public transport.
2.4 Social Exclusion
There are a number of sections of Australian society that
are particularly reliant on public transport. Such people risk
social exclusion if the available public transport services are
inadequate (e.g. too infrequent or inappropriate for special
needs). Social exclusion results when a person lacks a set
of services and opportunities available to other parts of the
population, decreasing that person’s ability to participate
successfully in society.
There are three broad groups who are at risk of social
exclusion. They are:
The Disabled; since many disabled individuals cannot drive,
public transport and personal hire transport are the only
options to make trips; effective public transport provides a
cost effective way for the disabled to travel
The Elderly; while elderly people value the independence
that the car can provide, their ability to drive safely
diminishes as they get older (through impaired vision and
hearing, slower reaction times, etc). Accordingly, they must
then rely on public transport for affordable, independent
transport. The alternatives are relatively expensive taxis
The Case for Public Transport
54 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT 55: PASSENGER TRANSPORT EXTERNALITY COSTSPassenger Transport Externality Costs1 (2005)
Dolla
rs/1
,000
Pas
seng
er k
ms
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Rail Bus Car
Note: 1 Externality cost estimation based on INFRA’s estimation of externality cost for 17 European countries Source: INFRAS
Nature and LandscapeClimate Change
Air Pollution
Noise
Accidents
INDICATIVE
Urban EffectsUpstream Process
Considered a separate type of costsince a large portion of the extra timeand operating costs are internal tothe individual
Congestion
Includes miscellaneous costs suchas other types of pollution
UpstreamProcess
Time losses incurred by pedestriansUrban Effects
Additional costs to repair damagesNature andLandscape
Damages of global warmingClimate Change
Damages of human health andbiosphere
Air Pollution
Includes opportunity costs of landvalue and human health
Noise
Includes opportunity costs and costsof suffering for individuals not inthe accident
Assumptions
Accidents
Externality Cost
~160
~74
~35
EXHIBIT 56: TOTAL COST OF TRANSPORTTotal costs by mode–NZ (Auckland–Peak)
NZ c
ents
per
Pas
seng
er K
ilom
etre
93.773.1
57.6 58.7
34.8
34.9
24.9
17.5
46.2
10.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Car Car Car Bus Rail
Source: Surface Transport Costs and Charges, NZ Ministry of Transport
128.6
98
75.1
104.9
44.9
(1.0) (2.0)(1.4)
ResourceCosts
Externalities
VehicleOccupancy
The Case for Public Transport
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 55
EXHIBIT 57: COSTS OF TRANSPORT IN SYDNEYAllocation of costs by mode
Cent
s pe
r Pas
seng
er K
ilom
etre
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
CityRail State TransitBuses
Private Buses Total PublicTransport
Car
Note: Immediate cost to user includes petrol, paid parking and tolls (for cars) and fares (for publictransport); Perceived cost to government includes direct subsidies; Other costs are “hidden”; including externalities
Source: Glazebrook (2006)
Immediatecost to user
Hidden costto user
Perceivedcost togovernment
Hidden costto society
10
28
2
22
21
5
20
21
5
14
26
3
13
32
2
34
EXHIBIT 58: VEHICLE OWNERSHIP AND INCOMEPercentage of Dwellings with No Motor Vehicle by Weekly Household Income, Sydney (2001)
Perc
ent o
f Hou
seho
lds
0
5
10
15
20
25
Under $300 $300–499 $500–699 $700–999 $1,000–1,499 $1,500+
Average Weekly Household Income
Source: Anne Hurni (UWS) ‘Transport and Social Exclusion’ NCOSS Conference (October 2005)
INDICATIVE24
22.5
1312
8 8
The Case for Public Transport
56 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
and, if available, community provided services or assistance
from friends or family. Even parts of the cities which are
well served by public transport (in terms of high service
frequencies within reasonable proximity) can be effectively
inaccessible to the elderly and disabled. This inaccessibility
relates largely to tram and bus modes, but also to stations
without escalators or lifts. For example only about 15%
of Melbourne’s tram network is accessible, by virtue of
the new, low-floor trams and super-stops. An associated
difficulty for the aged and disabled is being able to get from
the footpath to tram stops in the middle, as opposed to an
edge, of the road.
Low Income Groups; this is a large category (and will
overlap with some of the elderly and disabled groups
discussed above). It will include the unemployed, single-
parent families and students. The relationship between low
household income and dependency on public transport
is quite marked. Based on data from Sydney (Exhibit 58),
20 to 25% of the households in the two lower income bands
(below $500 per week) have no car, compared to 8 to 13%
for the higher income bands
The lack of accessibility to transport (both private and
public) is a significant barrier for unemployed people to
gain work, especially in the outer metropolitan (and non-
metropolitan) areas.
There is a vicious cycle for the unemployed; no job means
no money; no money means no transport which means
no job. This impact is particularly important for those in
the outer metropolitan areas. A recent study in Victoria
for the Brotherhood of St. Lawrence indicated that about
14% of the long-term unemployed in outer metropolitan
areas cited lack of transport as a major factor in preventing
employment, compared to about 4% for inner metropolitan
residents.51 This finding is consistent with an earlier study
looking at job accessibility in Melbourne (Exhibit 59), which
illustrates the much poorer accessibility to potential jobs for
those reliant on public transport.
It is not surprising, then, that measures of disadvantage
(See Exhibit 60) are greater in outer metropolitan (and
non-metropolitan) areas, where public transport services
are generally poor.
Finally, from an economic perspective, there are benefits
for employers in having a workforce that has ready access
to transport for travel to work. Better service coverage will
create a broader pool of employees than would otherwise
be available, and reduce required commuting times for staff.
2.5 Concluding Remarks
Australia is a very urbanised society; approximately half the
population live in the three, Eastern-seaboard capital cities.
For the metropolitan economies, increasing reliance on road
transport and the resultant congestion will impose significant
economic costs.
In summary a number of economic and social benefits can
be generated by investing in metropolitan public transport
systems. Better public transport will:
> reduce congestion; Increased investment in public
transport systems can help reduce congestion costs,
reduce the amount of kilometres driven in congested
conditions, and help to free up road space for freight
> reduce reliance on fuel; public transport uses much less
fuel per passenger kilometre than private vehicles
> reduce transport pollution; Public transport modes are far
more energy effi cient than personal cars. Public transport
modes emit less greenhouse gases per passenger
kilometre as well as require far less energy (fuel) per
passenger kilometre
> increase Community health; Increases in public transport
modal share will positively impact community health.
Public transport requires more physical activity than
driving a car does (i.e. walking from public transport stop
to house etc) and causes less stress than driving a car
does (e.g. no “road rage”); and
> prevent social exclusion; Effective public transport
diminishes geographic isolation and improves access to
employment and education for all individuals, regardless
of their socio-economic background. Better accessibility
also has an economic benefi t by increasing the number
of people able to more easily participate in the workforce.
The Case for Public Transport
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 57
EXHIBIT 59: ACCESSIBILITY OF EMPLOYMENT
By Car By Public Transport
<3% of jobs 3-25% of jobs >25% of jobsSource: Melbourne 2030—Planning for Sustainable Growth
Percentage of Jobs Accessible Within 40 Mins of Travel, Victoria (1996)
EXHIBIT 60: DISADVANTAGE IN SUBURBAN MELBOURNE
Source: Melbourne 2030—Planning for Sustainable Growth
Melbourne—Areas of Relative Disadvantage (1996)
The Case for Public Transport
Proposed Actions for Stakeholders |Ch.3>
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 61
Firstly, there are four specific matters that will best
be addressed by a comprehensive approach to
public transport.
1 Congestion: the costs of congestion are large, growing
and affect all Australians directly or indirectly. More
effective public transport systems are an essential
component of solutions to congestion.
2 Fuel Use and Related Effects: greater use of public
transport will help reduce both Australia’s reliance on
petrol refined from imported crude oil and also the
impact of higher fuel prices. Better public transport in the
outer suburbs will give people at the outer edges of our
cities viable alternatives to driving their cars.
3 Environment and Health: greater use of public transport,
in particular train, would reduce the levels of vehicular air
pollution and the associated cost and noise impacts, with
the additional benefit of a lower risk of road accidents.
Greater use of public transport will enable Australia to
reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases.
4 Social Exclusion: large numbers of Australians, in
particular the elderly, the poor and the unemployed, are
reliant on public transport for their basic needs (e.g. trips
for shopping, medical appointments and visiting friends).
More public transport is also a key element in reducing
barriers to employment, especially for the poorly paid and
for those in outer-metropolitan or regional areas, many of
whom simply do not have access to cars.
Secondly, it is useful to review the current allocation of
responsibilities of the various levels of government for
these five matters. This is outlined in exhibit 61 on the
following page.
While this diagram is necessarily simplistic, it does convey
some of the challenges in achieving a coordinated response
to these issues. In the case of road transport, the various
aspects of funding, responsibility for maintenance, taxes,
etc. lie across different levels of government. Freight
rail is a mixed Commonwealth/State responsibility, while
metropolitan public transport is a purely State-controlled
activity. This highlights the challenges in achieving a
coordinated response to increasing traffic congestion.
More importantly, this simple representation of
responsibilities tends to mask some important overlaps
and interactions that mean that decisions in one area can
have significant ramifications in other jurisdictions. It is
worthwhile reviewing some of these:
> road pricing to force cars off roads (to aid freight
fl ows) is only effective if there is suffi cient public
transport capacity
> freight rail capacity (a Commonwealth policy
responsibility) is impacted by other users of train paths
(e.g. public transport) or by poor access to terminals
(road congestion)
Proposed Actions for Stakeholders
Before laying out a suggested plan of action for the many stakeholders in transport, it is useful to recap briefly both the logic of the case for a national agenda for public transport and also the various institutional overlaps that characterise public transport in Australia. These two matters provide context for the prioritisation and allocation of the various roles and responsibilities in the suggested action plan.
62 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
> better public transport for socially disadvantaged could
be considered to directly benefi t the Commonwealth
Government (lower levels of unemployment benefi ts,
more income tax revenues) than State or local
governments who fund it; and
> decisions that States make on public transport and roads
can affect other parts of the transport sector in which the
Commonwealth Government has signifi cant interest e.g.
the fl ow of passengers and freight into and out of airports
and of freight to and from port terminals.
From this brief overview, it is clear that:
> it is in Australia’s interests to signifi cantly improve and
expand its public transport sector; and
> a more integrated and co-ordinated approach to
policy and funding is necessary for the three levels
of government. In addition, there are very important
roles for the public transport operators in delivering the
services as well as the business community, which has
an interest in the outcome.
While the average person is somewhat aware of the different
responsibilities of local, state, and the Commonwealth
Government, they are not interested in matters of
jurisdictional responsibility. What they want to see is
tangible actions delivered in their communities, that
improve their day-to-day travel, irrespective of which layer
of Government is accountable.
EXHIBIT 61: THE ROLES OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
Note: *Brisbane City Council provides bus services
Fuel
Passenger rail/bus/ferryrail *
Metropolitan Planning
Freight rail
Health and Environment
Social access and inclusion
Registration fees
Tax/User charges
Toll Roads
Maintenance
Funding
Road
s
Cong
estio
n
LocalStateCommonwealth
Proposed Actions for Stakeholders
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 63
3.1 Commonwealth Government
There is a clear need to develop a coordinated, national
approach to public transport. Under any scenario the
primary responsibility for funding and delivering public
transport services will remain a State responsibility. However
there are a number of important actions the Commonwealth
Government could take even with its currently largely
“hands off” approach to public transport. These could form
part of an expanded Auslink program, with emphasis on
urban transport issues. Were the Government to change its
current policy position, and take a more interventionist role,
then a number of further actions are logical.
Actions that are recommended, even with the Government’s
current policy position, are listed below.
3.1.1 Establish a Mechanism for a Comprehensive,
National Treatment of Public Transport Issues
A high priority task for the Commonwealth Government
is to establish an improved institutional setting for
passenger transport. This should assist bridging across the
various local, State and federal boundaries and allow the
development of a more national and coordinated approach
to public transport.
State Governments
Local Governments
> Engage withFederal and StateGovernments, inparticular toimprove integrationof transport andland use planning
> Develop land useplanningapproaches thatare consistent withpublic transportneeds to enhanceliveability anddelivery ofcommunityservices
> Take responsibilityfor someinfrastructure (eginterchanges andstops)
Business Community
> Lobby State and FederalGovernments for action
> Develop publictransport-friendlyemploymentstrategies (workhours, bike racks,showers, salarysacrifice, etc)
> Encouragecompanies toimplementtransportationdemandmanagementprograms
Public Transport Operators
Commonwealth Government
> Continue to improvecontractual servicestandards in terms ofreliability, punctuality,cleanliness, etc
> Contribute to publictransport morebroadly
assist in labourreform
influence modalintegration
support policy andplanning initiatives
share knowledgeand best practicethroughout theindustry
–
–
–
–
> Under the current“hands off” approach
establish an entityfor a comprehensive,national treatment ofpublic transportissues
provide monitoring ofefficiency ofproviders
provide one-offreform payments
take leadership indevelopment of anational approach toroad congestion andpricing
align taxes withpublic transportpolicy
reduce complianceburdens
> Under a more activepolicy role
develop acoordinated nationalpublic transport plan
provide targetedfunding for majorcapital works
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
> Improve the approachto planning
improve policy andplanningcoordinationacross modes andbetween transportand land-useplanning
develop betterplanning disciplines
improveimplementation ofpolicies
> Enhance the publictransport serviceoffering
maximise use ofexisting assets
invest for growth
promote modal shift
foster social transit
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
THE MAJOR SUGGESTED ACTION ITEMS FOR THE KEY INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS ARE SUMMARISED BELOW:
Proposed Actions for Stakeholders
64 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
There are a number of approaches that could be
considered, e.g.:
> as an additional stream through the COAG process
> through a “beefed-up” and suitably empowered
DOTARS; and
> through a re-vamped APTG.
Of these alternatives, the first two have some significant
disadvantages. The COAG process is useful for one-off
changes, whereas it appears that a more sustained, year-
round approach is needed for public transport; an enduring
institutional home is required. The problem with a DOTARS
governed body would be its exclusive Commonwealth
Government location. APTG offers an existing organisational
framework and already has representation of the necessary
government and private stakeholders. However, as indicated
in the analysis of the current mechanisms for coordinating
Government activities in public transport (see Section 2.1),
it is clear that some significant overhaul is indicated. At a
minimum, this would appear to require:
> giving APTG dedicated staff and funding. This requires
contributions from all participants, not just the
Commonwealth Government
> revising APTG’s scope and priorities
> increasing meeting frequency; and
> increasing the involvement of other agencies, particularly
State and Federal Treasuries.
The ultimate choice on the approach is clearly the province
of the Commonwealth Government, requiring definition
of the scope, the participants and their roles, the level of
funding, etc.
3.1.2 Provide Oversight and Monitoring of
Operator Efficiency
There is some evidence of mixed levels of efficiency
among passenger transport operators, but currently there
is no mechanism for rigorous assembly and review of
high quality comparative information. The Commonwealth
Government could play a valuable role by providing
objective, independent review of operational performance
and efficiency delivered by passenger transport operators
in each State.
There would be a valid role for such a function to grow over
time into a broader knowledge management or transport
research function.
3.1.3 Provide One-off Reform Payments
Given the scale of the investment in passenger transport,
small efficiency savings can provide material additional
funds to be re-deployed in additional services. There are
structural barriers at State level that preclude Governments
and operators from accessing obvious efficiency savings,
particularly among publicly owned operators.
The Commonwealth Government could provide incentive
payments to facilitate the delivery of one off step changes in
efficiency. For example, to the extent that efficiency gains
may involve redundancies, incentive payments could help
meet the cost of transitioning redundant staff into other
roles. Efficiency gains achieved under such a program could
be very significant, and would have lasting benefits in terms
of value for money delivered by public subsidies.
3.1.4 Take Leadership on a Number of Specific Initiatives
As outlined earlier in this document, there are a number
of areas where the Commonwealth Government has an
important role in policy and planning. The first two of these
warrant specific Commonwealth Government involvement to
drive essentially national initiatives. The remaining initiative
covers matters which are largely within the control of the
Commonwealth Government.
Freight and Congestion
Several of the Commonwealth Government’s transport
sector responsibilities will be affected by the increased
in road congestion in two areas. First, increasing road
congestion will slow down road freight traffic into and out
of ports and rail terminals, thereby nullifying improvements
made (and planned) to new important elements of
interstate and international freight infrastructure. Second,
as road congestion worsens, commuters will switch to
public transport which will (because of existing capacity
constraints, in particular load limits) require additional
Proposed Actions for Stakeholders
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 65
passenger services. These are likely to be gained at
the expense of rail freight services (a Commonwealth
Government responsibility), which are less time critical.
Clearly, the Commonwealth Government cannot act
unilaterally to address these issues. A coordinated
approach, acting jointly with State Governments and other
stakeholders, is required to develop a workable policy
framework. In this regard, it is pleasing to note the formation
of the Urban Congestion Working Group to begin the
process of addressing some of these issues.
Road Pricing
Road pricing is an obvious component to a national
approach to road congestion. It is, however, not without a
number of practical and political difficulties. Some of the
practical matters that need to be addressed include:
> adequate public transport capacity; unless steps are
taken to ensure that the public transport networks can
absorb the extra patronage generated by the imposition
of road pricing, there will be a smaller than desired
reduction in congestion and the initiative will be open
to the criticism that it is purely a revenue source or a
defacto tax
> interoperability; it is important that the systems used
to do the charging have suffi cient common elements
so that a car from Sydney can be driven in Brisbane or
Melbourne and be charged appropriately. Any system (or
systems) developed should also be compatible with any
mass-distance based charging schemes for large road
freight vehicles; and
> universality; there is some logic for a goal of having road
charging transponders in every road vehicle in Australia.
This would avoid the problems instanced by infrequent
and unintentional users of electronically tagged tollways.
These are complex matters with some clear political
difficulties, e.g. the understandable reluctance to introduce
another charge on motorists. Nevertheless, road pricing is
an important potential tool for congestion relief and it seems
that a national, as opposed to a purely State or city-based,
approach is warranted.
3.1.5 Align Taxes with Public Transport Policy
The current rules for Fringe Benefi ts Tax favour car use over
alternative transport modes and can encourage excessive
use of cars to qualify for greater FBT concessions. This
anomaly should be eliminated to provide a “more level
playing fi eld” for public transport and car use. Federal tax
arrangements could be revised more broadly to encourage
more travel by public transport. There are several possible
initiatives in this regard, e.g.:
> the public could receive tax breaks on public transport
fares (particular attention should be given to commuters
and students); and
> businesses could receive tax incentives to promote
greater use of public transport (i.e. tax breaks for
purchasing public transport tickets on behalf of
employees, “ride a bike to work” programs etc.).
The introduction of smartcards will allow employers to
provide transport to employees in a way that is more
transparent for all parties, including the ATO. As occurs
in other countries, employers could set up bulk billing
arrangements with public transport operators that add
value to an employees card from the employers account.
Employers actively encouraging public transport use with
appropriate taxation benefits is a positive step that the
Commonwealth Government and employers can take.
In this context, the support that the Commonwealth
and State Governments provide (through a variety of
mechanisms) to the automotive industry gives advantage
to car use over public transport. This support should also
be reviewed in light of the changing priorities for urban
transport and the environment.
3.1.6 Reduce Compliance Burdens
Current DDA requirements place a burden on operators who
face significant compliance costs. In order to support DDA
compliance, the Commonwealth Government should provide
tax incentives or grants to operators to implement DDA
requirements, or reduce compliance regulations all together.
Proposed Actions for Stakeholders
66 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
Similarly, the Commonwealth Government should provide
financial assistance for funding upgrades in security for
public transport. The Commonwealth Government’s security
guidelines and instructions are expensive and materially
impact operator profitability. Thus the Commonwealth
Government should support security compliance initiatives
through funding.
If the Government were to change its policy, and have a
more active involvement in passenger transport, then the
following actions could be considered:
3.1.7 Develop a Coordinated National Public
Transport Plan
Australia is one of the only OECD countries that lacks a
national “moving people” strategy. There is a valid task to
develop a national plan that (1) focuses on metropolitan
public transport, (2) incorporates all modes, i.e. private road
vehicles as well as rail, bus, cycling and walking and (3) is
national in its scope. The plan should include:
> a clear exposition of the policy priorities for public
transport
> an articulation of Australia’s future transport needs
> prioritisation of required actions
> clarity over responsibility for key issues and interfaces;
and
> integration (as far as is possible) with the transport plans
of State and, to a lesser extent, Local Government.
Such a plan would have greatest impact if there were
meaningful incentives to following it at a State and
Local level.
3.1.8 Targeted Funding for Major Capital Works
In keeping with the strategies adopted by the USA and
Canada, the Commonwealth Government could consider
targeted capital grants for major metropolitan transport
schemes. Funding of this type was clearly anticipated in
the Australian Land Transport Development Act 1988.
Due to the rapid growth of Australian cities during the
car-dominated age, insufficient provision has been made
for public transport corridors and the only way for this to
be rectified is substantial seed funding to allow new rail
network or bus priority measures to be implemented. This
may involve meeting the costs of reclamation of housing or
the costs of construction of tunnels to avoid reclamation.
These would have to be schemes of national significance,
selected against clearly agreed criteria. This would limit the
Government’s involvement to large capital injections, similar
to the better cities program of the mid-1990s.
3.2 State Governments
Public transport is now, and is likely to remain, the primary
responsibility of State Governments. Moreover, a number
of States have recently committed substantial funds to
public transport. Yet there is still signifi cantly more that the
States can do, both within their own jurisdictions and by
contributing to broader, national activities.
3.2.1 Improve the Approach to Planning
There are several elements required to improve transport
planning at the State level. The first is to ensure that the
division of responsibilities at the bureaucratic and ministerial
level does not impede effective policy development and
decision making in relation to (1) land use planning,
roads and public transport, and (2) choices between
different transport modes. In this regard, single ministerial
responsibilities, integrated portfolios, or other mechanisms
should be considered. An interesting example of this is
the recently created Office of the Co-ordinator General,
Infrastructure within the Victorian Government’s Department
of Infrastructure. These models need to be given time
to succeed.
The second element is to improve planning disciplines.
State Governments need to apply both rigour and repetition.
This means that:
> State Governments should develop “living” infrastructure
strategy documents that are updated every two to three
years; ideally documents would be integrated into, or
consistent with, the Commonwealth Government’s public
transport strategy; and
Proposed Actions for Stakeholders
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 67
> infrastructure plans should include methods for
supporting population growth through cohesive land
use and transport planning
In terms of planning, it is important that funding decisions
take into account all relevant factors and are based on
economic merit, and other relevant factors. In particular,
capital funding allocation decisions (in particular between
public transport and road-based private transport) should
originate from a detailed cost/benefit assessment. The
assessments should include consideration of all the direct
costs incurred as part of the project, as well as an analysis
that measures the externalities generated by the project
(e.g. increased pollution and congestion). They also need
to take into account factors that are not well captured in the
economic appraisal methodologies (eg benefit of reduced
road expenditures), and the impact on city liveability
and social inclusion. The consideration of congestion in
such assessments needs to be done in a more rigorous
and systematic manner. This requires better measures
for congestion, more comprehensive measurement of
congestion in metropolitan Australia and better estimation of
the full economic costs of congestion.
Transport planning requires long lead times. Greater
priority needs to be given to funding activities such as early
corridor preservation. There is significant resistance to this
from a funding perspective because it is simply seen as
a “cost” rather than a future investment. If corridors are
not reserved, later development requires large sections of
underground railway (at large cost), which makes public
transport less viable. In some cases, legislation may need to
be changed to ensure effective land resumption for public
transport purposes.
3.2.2 Enhance the Public Transport Service Offering
There are many actions that State Governments can take
to improve services. Some require capital spending, others
mainly involve more operating expenditure. Some require
neither and could increase revenue or reduce costs, but
require political leadership.
The first priority is to ensure that the maximum value for
money is delivered from existing assets and operating
expenditures. Peak travel is expensive to grow, which
means that maximizing the use of assets and infrastructure
in the peak is critical, and more shoulder and off-peak travel
can deliver significant gains without major expenditures.
Examples of such strategies include:
> cheaper off peak pricing, in particular, a pre-peak
discount for arrival before 7:30am
> limiting the use of heavily discounted tickets in peak
periods. In some Australian cities, heavily discounted
concession tickets account for more than 10% of am
peak patronage
> improving bus (and tram) priority, to decrease journey
time and improve service reliability
> providing integrated fares, to allow seamless transfer
between modes
> improving service planning, particularly for bus networks,
to ensure that optimal peak vehicle deployment
> considering higher ticket prices during peak periods
into congested CBD areas, where the cost of alternative
transport is very high. This can help to improve cost
recoveries, and free up funds for additional services.
However, it may need to be introduced at the same
time as higher prices on other modes (eg parking levies,
road pricing)
> reviewing generous concession and free-travel policies
> improving the operating performance of systems in terms
of punctuality, cancellations, cleanliness and continuing
to make transit organisations more customer-centric; and
> modernising operator work practices. This may require
transitional funding to achieve permanent change.
The second priority is to invest in public transport networks
to accommodate significant growth. The recent rise in
fuel prices, and the associated surge in patronage has
highlighted the significant capacity limitations across our
transport systems.
Proposed Actions for Stakeholders
68 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
Key initiatives will include:
> investing in new mass transit systems where justifi ed
(rail, bus rapid transit, light rail)
> increasing service frequencies, particularly in peak and
shoulder periods, and particularly on bus networks
> investing in greater rail capacity on the existing system,
and the modes and facilities that support rail patronage
(eg car parks, feeder buses)
> improving customer information and the softer aspects
of service delivery; and
> achieving more effective separation of passenger and
freight rail networks.
The third priority is to promote modal shift through
initiatives such as:
> better understanding of customer segments, and their
attitudes and behaviours
> improving off peak frequencies to help make public
transport a viable alternative to car on more occasions;
frequencies of greater than 30 minutes fall well short of
achieving this aim
> implementing travel demand management strategies
such as car parking levies
> supporting travel behaviour change programs such as
TravelSmart
> improving cycling and walking facilities; and
> exploring the potential of road pricing as a congestion
management strategy.
The fourth priority is to ensure adequate provision of social
transit. Here Governments need to:
> establish benchmarks for acceptable levels of access to
transport within metropolitan areas
> invest in system growth to achieve a reasonable level of
compliance with benchmarks; and
> be prepared to implement alternatives to scheduled bus
services where patronage levels are too low to justify a
minimum service frequency.
Inevitably, these initiatives require more funding. However,
Treasuries will be more likely to allocate additional funding
if they are confident that existing funds are being optimally
deployed, and that there is a coherent policy framework
underpinning all expenditures
3.3 Local Government
As indicated (in Exhibit 33, page 28) the role of Local
Government in transport is small compared to those of
State and Commonwealth Government. It has very limited
responsibility for public transport and its main, direct role
is for the maintenance and minor upgrade of local roads.
Despite this, Local Government does have an important part
to play in developing a better public transport system in its
role in urban planning (implementing State Government
policies), in ensuring enhanced liveability for ratepayers and
in ensuring effective delivery of a range of local services.
Local Governments are often torn between their own
policies, local community pressures and developer priorities.
3.3.1 Planning
Local Government is responsible for land use planning at
the micro (or grass roots) level and the decisions made
should be consistent with public transport planning.
While delivery of public transport is a State Government
responsibility, Local Government bodies should use their
infl uence to maximise the likelihood of appropriate levels
of public transport when considering proposed housing,
retail and commercial developments. Councils should
seek levies or contributions from developers to help fund
the public transport infrastructure necessary to service
proposed developments. Local Governments can also take
responsibility for some small, but important, elements of
public transport infrastructure, such as the planning, design
and maintenance of bus stops and modal interchanges and
for associated matters such as ensuring appropriate lighting
of the these areas.
Local Government should take the initiative and engage with
State (and, to a lesser extent, Commonwealth) Government
on public transport and planning issues. This means,
for example:
Proposed Actions for Stakeholders
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 69
> identifying specifi c local transport and planning issues
> developing municipal transport plans that complement
State Transport policy; and
> lobbying State Government agencies about developments
and funding priorities.
Unconstrained growth is spoiling Australia’s liveable cities.
Planning disasters such as Caroline Springs in Melbourne’s
West should not be repeated.
3.3.2 Liveability
The notion of city liveability is a function of the attractions
and attractiveness of local communities and involves a
(necessarily subjective) trade-off between considerations or
purely residential matters (e.g. the streetscape), of access
to services (e.g. shopping) and of access to entertainment
(e.g. music and cinemas). Local Government is the level
where these trade-offs are made explicit and, to a greater
or lesser extent, get resolved.
Examples of such trade-offs include those regarding:
> on-street parking in strip shopping centres; users of
public transport, public transport operators and private
vehicle uses would all benefi t from lower congestion
levels that result from reductions in, or elimination of,
on-street parking. Retail traders, however, are generally
opposed to any such reductions in parking because of
the perceived impact on business
> parking facilities; local governments have the ability
to cap (or levy) parking spaces in crowded urban
areas, restricting the number of vehicles that enter and
encouraging the use of public transport. To the extent
that levies are implemented, ideally these should be
hypothecated to public transport, rather than absorbed
into general revenues
> cultural attractions; one of the elements of city liveability,
in particular for inner-suburban areas, is the existence of
cultural attractions such as museums, galleries and live
music venues. However, some residents are opposed to
such attractions because of the noise, traffi c, perceived
security risks, effect on property prices and so on; and
> resident parking and new developments; there is a
signifi cant tension between the view of existing residents
and developers on inner suburban areas which has an
impact on public transport issues. Existing residents
would prefer any new housing developments to have
signifi cant off-street parking as an integral component of
the design in order that there is not any further pressure
on limited on-street parking. Developers may attempt
to resist providing parking because of the additional
cost, but the important issue is that additional parking
spaces will serve to increase, rather than decrease,
traffi c congestion.
There are no simple answers to resolve these differences
but it is apparent that Local Government is the most logical
forum and that it should have some input into the process of
resolution. In this process, Local Government bodies should
be clearly mindful of public transport issues.
3.3.3 Service Delivery
Local Government is increasingly becoming the delivery arm
for a wide range of community services that are directed
at special, and often disadvantaged, groups such as the
aged, the disabled and children with special needs. These
services include parent and family support, community
transport, maternal and child health and those provided
by community health centres.
Many of the people that are the targets of these services
are also those who rely on public transport systems for their
general transport needs. Local Government organisations
are thus the natural advocates for better public transport
(so called “social transit”) for these people and this is
thus another valid role for this level of government. In this
context, some Local Government bodies already have some
involvement in planning local transport services, such
as bus-based community services (e.g. in conjunction
with voluntary organisations, churches and other
community groups).
Proposed Actions for Stakeholders
70 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
3.4 The Business Community
Members of Australia’s business community should not be
bystanders in the debate over public transport, since they
have significant involvement in several areas.
First, the costs of congestion are borne directly by
many businesses, e.g. in distributing goods to their own
warehouses, to retailers and wholesalers and to consumers.
Other businesses bear these costs indirectly, through the
impact of congestion costs on their suppliers. Second,
businesses have an interest in employing and retaining
talented staff that are, as outlined above, attracted to
liveable cities with good public transport. Third, businesses
do not want their staff to arrive at work tired after long
commuting times in congested traffic. Accordingly, there
is a role for the Business Community to engage actively
with State and Commonwealth Governments to support the
cause for public transport.
There is, however, a role for business beyond seeking to
influence government policy. There are a number of matters
within the control of individual businesses that can further
the natural agenda for public transport. These include
developing public transport-friendly employment strategies,
such as:
> encouraging demand management travel initiatives
through flexible working hours and home offices
> providing salary benefits (or other incentives) for those
individuals who utilise public transport
> introducing “bike-to-work” programs to encourage
sustainable transport and healthy lifestyles; and
> installing proper facilities, such as showers and
bike racks.
Finally, there is a role for business leaders to lead by
example. One way is by being seen to use public transport
when appropriate. An example here is the publicity that
Bicycle Victoria gives to some senior business leaders who
choose to commute via bicycle (Ian Lazarus (VicSuper CIO),
Dr David Hills (Royal Australasian College of Surgeons CEO),
Dr Rob Moodie (VicHealth CEO), Shelly Lavendar (YHA
CEO) and Judy Slatyer (Lonely Planet CEO) were mentioned
in Bicycle’s Victoria's email newsletter of 27 July, 2006).
Others, such as NSW MHR Malcolm Turnbull, also have
demonstrated leadership in their use of trains.
3.5 The Public Transport Operators
There is a significant amount that public transport operators,
whether government or privately-owned, can do to support
the National agenda. The simplest, and most obvious, is to
continue to provide more and better services for passengers,
i.e. to meet and exceed the standards set for punctuality,
cancellations, cleanliness and so on in order to retain and
expand their customer base. There are, however, a range of
other measures, beyond the requirements of their franchise
or service agreements with their owners that the operators
should adopt. These include:
> working with State governments and unions to implement
the necessary elements of labour reform, where
necessary. The more that operators can demonstrate
their delivery of value for money to State Treasuries, the
more likely that more funds will be forthcoming
> improving modal integration; this would involve the
development of timetables and structures to provide
services for passengers covering several modes
> supporting research, policy and planning activities;
operators should take a prominent role in shaping the
direction of public transport policy by actively supporting
and commissioning projects in research and policy
development. This should involve long term timeframes
(beyond those of applicable franchise or contractual
arrangements) and considerations beyond incremental,
business-as-usual change
> introducing service innovations; these include areas such
as real time customer information, notifi cation of delays/
cancellations by SMS, stop and station layout, vehicle
design, introduction of smartcards with “pay as you go”
functionality and automatic re-load etc
> benchmarking and information sharing; operators can
do much more to improve the operations of public
transport in Australia by sharing best practice. There may
be some reluctance for privately-owned operators to do
Proposed Actions for Stakeholders
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 71
this, but it would seem more sensible for the operators to
take the initiative in this regard (with suitable protocols)
rather than have it forced upon them by the various
State agencies who have, in most cases, access to the
information anyway. A related matter is that there would
be some signifi cant benefi ts to seek ways to harmonise
systems and procedures (and potentially equipment)
between different operators. This could range from joint
purchase of bus scheduling software, development of
common safe-working procedures, conducting mutual
operational audits, etc.; and
> continuing to move towards customer-oriented
organisations that provide a viable alternative to
car travel.
Collectively, these actions can create a passenger transport
system that underpins the sustainability, liveability and
economically prosperity of Australia’s great cities.
Proposed Actions for Stakeholders
Appendices: A—Sources; B—Rail Networks: Projects to 2020; C—APTG Terms of Reference |App.>
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 75
1 Sydney: CityRail patronage excludes Countrylink.
Sydney Ferries patronage was estimated in 1985
by applying the 1986-2005 CAGR. Sydney Buses
patronage includes Newcastle. Patronage in 1989 was
estimated from the average of 1988 and 1990. Private
Bus patronage was estimated from limited data.
Brisbane: CityTrain patronage in 1985 was estimated
by applying the 1986-2005 CAGR. No private bus
data was available for Queensland.
Adelaide: Bus patronage was estimated from 1985
to 1991 using a CAGR based on 1988-2005 initial
bus boardings.
2 ‘Sydney is a sprawling, gridlocked, polluted mess. It’s
time to fi x it’, Sydney Morning Herald, 30 May 2005
3 Making the Right Choices: Options for Managing
Transport Congestion; VCEC, April 2006, Pg 36
4 Austroads (2005), Road Facts 2005, An Overview
of the Australian and New Zealand road systems,
Pg 52 & 53
5 Predicting Traffi c Growth in Australian Cities, BTRE
Staff Paper
6 VCEC (2006) and The Economist; Population density
statistics appear to vary widely between sources
7 Newman, P and Kenworthy, J (1999) Sustainability
and Cities
8 Melbourne 2030 Report, p30; The plan also imposes
an urban growth boundary
9 Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, p131-133
10 South East Queensland Regional Plan part F8 (Urban
Development)
11 Department of Infrastructure (2004);
12 Offi ce of the Coordinator General (2001), Long-
Term Strategic Plan for Rail, Greater Sydney
Metropolitan Region
13 Transport for London, Freedom Pass conditions
14 Translink, QLD
15 American Public Transport Association (APTA)
Ridership Survey Q1 2006
16 Auslink White Paper (2004)
17 Making the Right Choices: Options for Managing
Transport Congestion; VCEC, April 2006
18 Hensher, D and Houghton, E (2004) Performance
Based Contracts, Instituted of Transport Studies
Working Paper 04-03
19 The Knowledge Management Gap in Australian Public
Transport, Professor Graham Currie, 30 May 2004
20 Federal Transit Administration 2006 Apportionment
21 United States Department of Transport Budget, 2007
Appendix A—Sources
Sources
76 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
22 Transportation Research Board website
23 Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund website
24 Green Municipal Fund website
25 BTE (2000), Information Sheet 16, Urban
Congestion—the implications for Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
26 Austroads (2005), Road Facts 2005, An Overview of
the Australian and New Zealand road systems
27 BTRE (2006), Freight Measurement and Modelling in
Australia (Report 112)
28 BTRE (2006), Freight Measurement and Modelling in
Australia (Report 112)
29 Austroads (2005), Road Facts 2005—An Overview of
the Australian and New Zealand road systems
30 Deloitte (2003), Combating Gridlock: How Pricing
Road Use Can Ease Congestion
31 Deloitte (2003), Combating Gridlock: How Pricing
Road Use Can Ease Congestion
32 For example BTE (2000), Information Sheet 16,
Urban Congestion—the implications for Greenhouse
Gas Emissions; BTE, (1999) Urban Transport Looking
Ahead, Information Sheet 14; Centre for International
Economics (2002) ‘Sydney’s Transport Infrastructure:
The Real Economics’; Centre for International
Economics (2001) ‘Subsidies and the Social Costs
and Benefi ts of Public Transport
33 BTE, Urban Transport: Looking Ahead, Information
Sheet 14, BTE (1999)
34 DOI Submission to VCEC on Congestion (2005);
Linking Melbourne: Metropolitan Transport Plan
35 The Australia Institute, No 43, June 2005, Stuck
in Traffi c
36 T.Litman, The on-line TDM encyclopaedia: Mobility
Management Implementation Gateway; Transport
Policy, 10, 245-249, 2003
37 Transportation Demand Management: A Guide for
Including TDM Strategies in major Investment Studies
and in Planning for other Transportation Projects;
Washington State Department of Transportation
(August 1996)
38 An Innovative funding mechanism to support and
implement area-wide travel planning programs, Sue
Mills, May 2006 (www.iht.ogr/technical/downloads/
IHT%20Paper%20Nov%202005%20revision%206.
doc)
39 New Seward Highway Rabbit Creek Road to
36th Avenue, prepared for Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, February 2002.
40 www.wsdot.wa.gov/TDM/progam_summaries/ctr_
summ.cfm; Washington State Department of Transport
41 Combating Gridlock, How pricing road use can
ease congestion; Deloitte Research; Online TDM
Encyclopaedia, Road Pricing, 26pp, April 4, 2006,
www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm; Making the Right
Choices: Options for Managing Transport congestion;
VCEC, April 2006.
42 International Approaches to Tackling Transport
Congestion, Paper 1: Area Road Use Charging; VCEC,
Booz Allen Hamilton, April 2006
43 Online TDM Encyclopaedia; Road Pricing, 26pp, April
4, 2006; www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm.
44 Monthly Oil Survey: International Energy Agency
45 Currie G and Phung J (2006) ‘Exploring the Impacts
of Fuel Price Increases on Public Transport Use in
Melbourne’ Australian Transport Research Forum
Sept 2006
46 Lateline, 28/04/2006
47 Australian Greenhouse Offi ce; BTRE “Greenhouse Gas
emissions from Transport—Australian Trends to 2020”
Appendix A—Sources
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 77
48 BTRE Working Paper 63, Health Impacts of Transport
Emissions in Australia. Note: The value of a statistical
life used was $1.3 million (a discount of 30% on the
Bureau’s costing of transport accident fatalities. This
refl ects the older age profi le of air pollution-related
early deaths).
49 Transport and Liveablity—The Path to a More
Sustainable Victoria
50 Bauman, A et al, Getting Australia active: towards
better practice for the promotion of physical activity,
National Public Health Partnership, March 2002
51 Janet Stanley (Brotherhood of St. Lawrence). ‘Social
Exclusion and PT’ Conference on Transport, Social
Disadvantage and Well Being (April 2006); Daniel
Perkins (BSL) ‘Personal Support Program Evaluation-
Interim Report’ (October 2005) Melbourne 2030-
Planning for Sustainable Growth (p.24)
Appendix A—Sources
78 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
Melbourne
# Project MOTC initiative
Potential upgrades
1 Clifton Hill loop reversal P
2 City loop—signalling upgrade P
3 West Footscray to Sunshine—3rd track and Sunshine to Watergardens—Signalling Upgrade P
4 North Melbourne station—Interchange Upgrade (no relevance to capacity) P
5 Clifton Hill to Westgarth—Track duplication P
6 Caulfield to Springvale—3rd track P
7 Laverton to Werribee—Signalling Upgrade P
8 Flinders Street station upgrades P
9 Werribee Corridor—new Station, stabling P
10 Old Geelong Road level crossing upgrade ( no relevance to capacity) P
11 Broadmeadows corridor—stabling P
12 Upfield to Roxburgh Park—link P
13 Sandringham station—2nd platform, stabling P
14 Cranbourne station—stabling P
15 Springvale to Dandenong P
16 Pakenham station—3rd platform, stabling P
17 Keon Park to Epping—duplication P
18 Epping to South Morang—extension P
19 Newport to Altona Junction—3rd track P
20 Frankston line—stabling P
21 Richmond station upgrade ( committed beyond 2020) P
22 Footscray to West Footscray—3rd track and Footscray to Sunshine—4th track (committed beyond 2020) P
23 Dandenong station—4th platform (committed beyond 2020) P
24 Capacity enhancement: Clifton Hill—Jolimont P
25 Duplication from Ferntree Gully—Upper Ferntree Gully P
26 Segregated access to the city and additional tracks for regional services to avoid line and junction constraints from Footscray to North Melbourne/Southern Cross Station
P
27 Signalling upgrade Eltham—Hurstbridge P
28 Additional Richmond crossover for Burnley services P
29 Southern Cross station enhancement for Metro and through regional services P
30 3rd track from Footscray to Newport and Laverton to Werribee P
31 Duplication and signal upgrade between Greensborough and Eltham P
32 3rd track from Box Hill to Ringwood P
33 3rd track from Mooroolbark—Lilydale P
34 North Melbourne Station Enhancement P
Appendix B—Rail Networks: Projects to 2020
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 79
Sydney
# Project Publicly funded initative
Potential upgrades
1 Bondi Junction turnback P
2 Cronulla branch line duplication P
3 Lidcombe turnback and platform P
4 Two extra tracks, Sydenham to Erskineville P
5 Liverpool turnback and platform P
6 Extra tracks, Kingsgrove to Revesby P
7 Macarthur Extra Platform P
8 Macdonaldtown turnback & stabling P
9 Homebush turnback and platform P
10 Revesby turnback and platforms P
11 Berowra Extra Platform P
12 Epping to Chatswood Rail Line P
13 Hornsby extra Platform & Stabling P
14 Carlingford Line upgrade P
15 South West Rail Link (land acquisition funded only) P
16 North West Rail Link (land acquisition funded only) P
17 North Sydney station capacity upgrade P
18 Quakers Hill to Schofield Duplication P
19 Town Hall station capacity upgrade (in State Infrastructure Strategy but no dollars allocated)
P
20 CBD underground rail corridor (planning work and safeguarding corridors only in metro rail expansion prog)
P
21 Illawarra Junction P
22 Track amplification Granville to Homebush (depends on effectiveness of NWRL in drawing patronage away from Main West)
P
23 Solution to improve capacity on city suburban lines (depends on effectiveness of NWRL in drawing patronage away from Main West)
P
24 Extension of quadruplication beyond Revesby P
25 Track amplification Campbelltown to Glenfield P
26 Track amplification beyond Hurstville P
27 Duplication beyond Schofields P
28 Grade separation Wolli Creek junction P
Appendix B—Rail Networks: Projects to 2020
80 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
Brisbane
# Project Publicly funded / SEQIPP committed Potential upgrades
1 New branch line to Springfi eld P
2 Extension of Gold Coast line to Elanora P
3 New branch line to Caloundra P
4 New cross—city alignment from Park Road to Bowen Hills P
5 Partial duplication between Cleveland and Manly P
6 Additional track for passenger services on the Cleveland Line P
7 Dual gauging and extension of Murarrie refuge loop P
8 New refuge loop near Lytton Junction P
9 Upgraded/new stabling (some suggested locations) P
10 Extension of third track from Salisbury to Kuraby P
11 Extension of third track from Kuraby to Beenleigh P
12 Full duplication of Gold Coast Line from Ormeau to Robina P
13 Signaling upgrade between Ormeau to Beenleigh P
14 Third track from Darra to Corinda P
15 Grade separation of Darra Junction P
16 Extend third track from Darra to Redbank P
17 Corinda freight bypass P
18 Duplication of Mitchelton to Ferny Grove P
19 Third platform at Mitchelton P
20 Extend third track from Lawton to Petrie P
21 New freight refuge loop at Petrie P
22 Extend third track from Petrie to Burpengary P
23 Realign and duplicate track Caboolture to Landsborough P
24 Build a second platform at Shorncliffe P
Appendix B—Rail Networks: Projects to 2020
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 81
Terms of Reference
Introduction
The Australian Passenger Transport Group—Moving People
(APTG) was established by the Standing Committee on
Transport (SCOT) to provide advice, leadership and support
on passenger transport policy and strategic issues.
The APTG takes a broad view of integrated transport policy
and its interface with wider government objectives for
economic development, fiscal prosperity, environmental
protection, health and safety and social inclusion. The APTG
also provides expert advice supported by government and
independent research.
The key principle of the group is to develop sustainable
passenger transport in Australia. In pursuing the goal of
sustainable passenger transport the APTG will seek to
influence and shape the overall task of moving people in
Australia. In this context passenger transport accessibility,
mobility and sustainable car use will all receive attention.
Role of the Group
The APTG will provide SCOT with advice on passenger
transport strategy, policy issues and respond where national
attention adds value. The APTG will support SCOT’s role
in advising the Australian Transport Council (ATC) on
national strategy and policy, underpinning its advice with
rigorous analysis.
The APTG’s main roles include:
> Leading the development of national strategies for
sustainable passenger transport including identifying and
clarifying the roles and contributions of the three levels
of government.
> Supporting SCOT and the ATC at the national level.
> Providing SCOT with advice on emerging passenger
transport issues and trends.
> Advising on policies and strategic initiatives that
enhance passenger transport, including making formal
submissions to reviews of policies and programs.
> The development of frameworks for program evaluation.
Vision:
> The APTG’s vision is for, passenger transport systems
which are sustainable, accessible, safe and affordable.
Objectives
The key objectives of the group are to:
> Increase knowledge and awareness of the national
significance of passenger transport.
> Provide a national approach on key issues.
> Effectively consult and liaise with passenger transport
interest groups.
> Influence decision makers.
> Develop partnership initiatives with agencies involved in
effective and sustainable passenger transport.
> Develop and implement an action plan for
passenger transport.
> Support and promote the National Charter of Land Use
and Transport Planning.
Australian Passenger Transport Group—‘Moving People’ (APTG)
Appendix C—APTG Terms of Reference
82 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
Key Tasks
The key tasks involve:
> Preparing and implementing a 3 year strategic plan and
annual prioritised work agenda with recommendations
for resourcing.
> Working with stakeholders to develop and implement
the strategies.
> Coordinating the activities of SCOT APTG sub-groups.
Composition of the SCOT APTG
The APTG comprises of high level representatives from
Queensland Transport’s Passenger Transport Division,
The Public Transport Division of the Department of
Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (South Australia),
Ministry of Transport (New South Wales), Department of
Infrastructure (Victoria), VicRoads (Victoria), Department
for Planning and Infrastructure (Western Australia),
Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources
(Tasmania); Department of Urban Services (Australian
Capital Territory), Department of Infrastructure Planning and
Environment (Northern Territory), Department of Transport
(Commonwealth) and Regional Services and observers
from the National Transport Commission (NTC) and the
Australian Local Government Association (ALGA).
Responsibilities of Chairperson
The Chairperson will:
> Chair APTG meetings, which will be held at least twice
a year.
> Report to SCOT.
> Manage the agenda to ensure that the items listed for
discussion are appropriate and are addressed at an
appropriate level.
> Guide the development and coordinate the assessment
of proposals and initiatives.
> Liaise with key stakeholders, including government and
non-government organisations.
> At all times exercise the degree of care and diligence in
the performance of their duties that could reasonably be
expected of a person in such a position.
Responsibilities of Members
Agreed responsibilities of members are:
> To contribute positively to the role and vision of
the group.
> To communicate back to own jurisdiction, industry and
interest groups.
> To actively promote and raise awareness of the APTG
and its role.
> To commit to taking responsibility for approvals for the
action plan, recognising that the group may advance
particular issues without necessarily committing
individual jurisdictions.
Working outside the APTG meeting
From time to time working groups may be established,
where appropriate to progress specific issues. This may
involve people who are not APTG members but who may
have particular expertise or ability to influence outcomes.
Appendix C—APTG Terms of Reference
NATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT AGENDA > 83
84 < AUSTRALASIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
General
The ARA would like to thank L.E.K. Consulting
for the preparation of THIS report. The provision
of ideas, data and comments from State and
Commonwealth Governments and Transport
Operators is gratefully acknowledged.
ARA Office
Unit 17, Level 3, National Circuit,
Barton ACT 2600
PO Box 4864, Kingston ACT 2604, Australia
Telephone 02 6270 4500
Facsimile 02 6273 5581
Website www.ara.net.au
Published by the
Australasian Railway Association Inc
© 2006 All Rights Reserved
Designed by GRi.D, Canberra
Printed by Pirion
Images on pages ....... Provided by RailGallery
National Passenger Transport Agenda |2006>
>06
National P
assenger Transport Agenda |2
00
6>