Parking the car: the swing to public transport

Tim Brennan & Stuart White Institute for Sustainable Futures University of Technology, Sydney

During the second half of the twentieth century there was a rapid move towards private car based travel as the predominant source of mobility for Australians. The private car, being unlimited by routes and schedules, came to be associated with images of progress and individual liberty. Governments transport strategies reinforced this vision by investing heavily in road infrastructure and, in many cases, removing tramlines and shutting rail services down. However in the past decade, the image of the car as an instrument of freedom has become increasingly rare outside the world of advertising. The well known problems of car travel, including congestion, accidents, air pollution and reduction of urban amenity have been joined by new threats such as climate change and peak oil. It appears that public attitudes are changing and that Australians are beginning to show signs that their love affair with the car might be coming to an end. Newman and Kenworthy1 have shown that per capita travel by car in Australias capital cities appears to have peaked in 2004 and is beginning to decline. The peak appears to have arrived in 2004 in all the state and territory capitals. There are many possible reasons for this decline including increasing trip times by car, ageing populations, urban infill (that has seen the densities of our major cities begin to increase after decades of decrease), rising fuel prices and a cultural shift towards a preference for inner urban living. While car use appears to be in decline following a peak, the opposite is true of public transport, after decades of decline the last decade saw a sharp upswing in patronage numbers in all capitals except Sydney2. There is reason to suspect that this growth will continue; in fact there are signs that there is still a latent demand for more public transport that is not being met. Social research commissioned by the National Transport Commission3, found that 58% of people would like to use public transport more and 51% would like to drive their car less. However the publics desire for improved public transport services is not always matched by government investment decisions. The Australian Conservation Foundation reports that over the last ten years the amount of money spent on public roads and bridges has been 4.3 times that spent on public railway construction4. This lack of investment is one of the reasons behind the capacity and overcrowding issues that are facing some of our urban rail systems. Public frustration with government inertia in funding rail is beginning to have political implications; a number of commentators (including the ALP State Secretary) noted the fact that the Brumby Government lost nine seats on the troubled Frankston and Lilydale Lines in last years Victorian election5. So why are elected representatives failing to respond to public concerns about public transport? Potentially there could be an element of these decision makers second guessing the preferences of citizens. For many years the decline of public transport and increasing car usage may have convinced politicians that the public is more interested in road improvements than public transport improvements. The higher proportion of marginal seats in outer suburban areas where car usage is the highest may have also exacerbated the devaluing of concerns about the public transport system. However as the Victorian election result suggests, even in the outer suburbs public transport operations can have a crucial electoral impact. 1

Another possible cause of the underinvestment in public transport could be problems in the way potential transport projects are assessed. The Institute for Sustainable Futures at UTS and the National Transport Commission are undertaking research into the long term future of transport in Australia and have been gaining views from stakeholders regarding the opportunities and challenges they see for the transport sector in the coming decades. Whilst the research is at a preliminary stage an emerging theme has been the need for a fairer system of analysis where all modes of transport pay the true cost of their impact. The subsidies provided to car travel in the form of land dedicated to roads and parking are significant, and there are substantial costs associated with accidents and pollution that are borne by society as a whole. The greenhouse intensity of rail transport is less than half that of cars during peak periods. The Federal Government has an objective to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, and given the long life-span of transport infrastructure it is paramount that the future resilience of our cities is considered when valuing these (and other) externalities. Finances are constrained, and there is a significant challenge associated with transitioning the transport system to a post-carbon future. Therefore substantial funding decisions must be made in a cost-effective way, while also adequately valuing externalities. ISF has been conducting research into the use of Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) as a decision-making framework6 in the transport field, including for a major Australian public transport provider. IRP has been used extensively in the water and energy sectors as a means of prioritising projects to achieve the most cost effective portfolio of investments. One of the strengths of IRP is its ability to compare supply side projects (which increase capacity) with demand management measures (which reduce demand while still meeting needs) using a common metric, or unit cost. In the transport field, increasing the capacity of road networks to supply more peak travel is very expensive. Options that reduce the demand on the road network, whether through changing land use patterns, promoting active transport or investing in public transport, have great potential to provide cost-effective improvements to transport systems. An increasingly important element in providing quality public transport is the provision of information to passengers. Since the advent of the printed timetable pubic transport operators have recognised that the good information builds trust and confidence in public transport. Today, digital connectivity has pushed public transport information beyond the station and the better information systems have already meshed seamlessly with mobile phone technology to provide convenient, easy to interpret information anywhere. Given how early into the development of mobile communications systems we are, the real time information systems we see today are probably just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps in the future there will not just be information provided in real time but smart networks that adapt to passenger demand in real time. The sprawled settlement patterns that developed in Australian cities during the era of cheap energy has left our transport systems with a significant challenge to transition to the post carbon world. The area of transport futures is quite contested, with vocal and powerful advocacy groups, and an often polarised debate. However, this need not be the case. Research at ISF7 has recently examined the collaborative process of reform that took place in Munich, Germany that offers an example of how this polarisation can be overcome. After years of inertia a stakeholder forum (called the Inzell Forum), championed by the Mayor, brought together the automotive industry, public transport and active transport professionals, government, community groups and others. By focussing on the large areas of common ground that the participants shared the forum was able to overcome old antagonisms and build trust between the participants, which allowed the establishment of working 2

relationships and mutual learning between stakeholders. Over time the Inzell Forum, with other initiatives, was able to help achieve substantial reform, increasing the efficiency, sustainability and integration of the Munich transport system. Our transport systems face significant challenges, and it appears as though Australians have lost faith in the idea that continued road building can solve our transport problems. Australians want investment in public transport and expect governments to provide it cost effectively. Co-operative solutions are required that to develop networks that not only provide intermodal integration but also make use of technology to integrate seamlessly and conveniently into the everyday lives of people. The direction that future transport systems will take is unknown but one thing is certain, rail is a mode capable of moving large numbers of people quickly and efficiently and is likely to increase in importance. Newman, P., & Kenworthy J., (2011), Peak Car use: Understanding the Demise of Automobile Dependence, World Transport, Policy & Practice, Vol 17.2, June 2011. 2 ibid. 3 Hoye, J., Andreadakis, I., Vercoe, S., (2011), Smart Transport for a Growing Nation: Public Attitudes to Mobility and Access Social Research Report, GA Research for National Transport Commission. 4 Australian Conservation Foundation, 2011, Australias Public Transport: Investment for a Clean Transport Future, Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne. 5 Reece, N., 2010, in Bowen, D., The Fkn line and the state election result accessed at http://www.danielbowen.com/2011/04/15/pt-fkn-line/ 6 Campbell, S. & White, S. 2005, 'Integrated Resource Planning for Transport: asking better questions', International Conference on Urban Transport and the Environment in the 21st Century, Algarve, Portugal, April 2005 in Urban Transport XI, ed Brebbia, CA and Wadhwa, LC, WIT Press, Southampton, UK, pp. 619-629. 7 Baumann, C. & White, S., 2011, 'Collaborative stakeholder dialogue: a pragmatic pathway towards sustainable urban transport development', 3rd World Planning Schools Congress, Perth (WA), 4-8 July 2011.
1