Chapter 3
Benefits of public transport
3.1
This chapter summarises and comments on the arguments put in submissions
about the benefits of public transport.
3.2
The major benefits are said to be:
-
public transport moderates traffic congestion;
-
priority to public transport, walking and cycling improves the
general urban amenity by economising the space needed for cars and
strengthening existing transit-accessible centres;
-
public transport, being more energy-efficient than car travel,
supports policies to improve energy efficiency, reduce reliance on imported
oil, and reduce transport greenhouse emissions;
-
public transport use promotes public health;
-
public transport is needed to reduce the transport disadvantage
and social isolation of people without cars.
3.3
All governments accept these benefits. State strategic plans now
commonly include ambitious goals to increase public transport use.[1]
It appears that public attitudes also favour improving public transport. For
example, the International Association of Public Transport (UITP) referred to a
recent Melbourne survey in which respondents agreed far more with 'the
government needs to provide more on public transport' (92 per cent agreed) than
with 'it is more important to give people tax cuts' (61 per cent agreed) or 'the
government needs to spend more on road infrastructure' (58 per cent agreed).[2]
3.4
The purposes of public transport may have different emphases in
different areas. Public transport as mass transit to relieve traffic congestion
refers mainly to services on trunk routes and in more congested inner areas of
cities. Public transport in outer suburban and rural and regional areas usually
has less role in relation to congestion, but still serves the other purposes.
Public transport to reduce traffic congestion
3.5
On present trends urban traffic will increase by 37 per cent between
2005 and 2020. The result will inevitably be more traffic congestion.[3]
3.6
The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE,
formerly BTRE) has estimated that the avoidable cost of congestion in the
Australian capital cities was about $9.5 billion in 2005, and in the base case
(business as usual on present trends) this will increase to $20.4 billion in
2020.
3.7
The BTRE notes that the growth of congestion over the last 15 years has
been moderated by significant road-building, more sophisticated management to
maximise road capacity, and peak spreading; however continued improvement in
these ways 'will likely pose a challenge for some jurisdictions.'[4]
3.8
The base case assumes that the public transport mode share stays around
its present level. The BTRE also ran the following scenarios:
-
public transport, walking and cycling double their mode share.[5]
In that case the 2005 avoidable congestion cost would have been about $7
billion (base case $9.5 billion), and the 2020 cost would reduce to about $14
billion (compared with base case $20.4 billion).
-
all public transport, walking and cycling trips, present and
projected, become car trips. In that case the 2005 avoidable congestion cost
would have been about $12.5 billion (base case $9.5 billion), and the 2020 cost
would increase to about $27 billion (compared with base case $20.4 billion).[6]
3.9
Thus it is estimated that about $3 billion per year of traffic
congestion cost is avoided by the existence of walking, cycling and public
transport use at their present levels; and this figure will double by 2020.
3.10
This may be compared with the public subsidy to public transport
estimated at about $3.3 billion (five capital cities - see paragraph 2.27ff).[7]
The public transport subsidy includes subsidy to many services which have no
congestion-helping role (typically, poorly patronised outer suburban services),
so the subsidy relating to the services which do have a congestion-helping role
may be quite cost effective (the subsidy of course also serves the other social
policy goals discussed below).
3.11
It is by now generally accepted, including by road authorities, that
urban traffic congestion cannot be solved by building roads - or at least, not
only by building roads.[8]
This is because building roads encourages the growth of traffic and entrenches
patterns of urban development that create high car use. Even without this
feedback, building enough roads to handle traffic growth would be impractical
and unaffordable:
Past transport studies and experience have shown that
building freeways does not solve congestion, and they will in fact increase
congestion in the long term.[9]
3.12
It is inevitable that as our cities grow public transport must play a
greater role in combating traffic congestion.
How public transport moderates
traffic congestion
3.13
Traffic congestion reaches an equilibrium at which the costs of entering
the congested system are greater than the benefits for the marginal user. The
marginal user will then travel to a less congested place, or at a less
congested time, or avoid travelling, or use public transport.[10]
3.14
If public transport alternatives are improved, more motorists will use
them, and the equilibrium point for the traffic will be a less congested situation.
3.15
When traffic is close to the capacity of a road even a small increase in
traffic can greatly increase congestion.[11]
From that position even a small reduction in traffic may have disproportionate
benefits.
3.16
This applies best to services that are independent of the traffic
congestion. Buses and trams cannot attract motorists from congested traffic if
they are caught up in it themselves. This suggests a strong need for more bus and
tram priority measures.
3.17
The benefit is increased by 'transit leverage': the car travel forgone
is greater than the public transport travel created, as public transport users
tend to plan their travel more economically.[12]
Connection between public transport
and congestion charges
3.18
The second role of public transport in coping with traffic congestion is
an indirect, political one: better public transport is essential to make
congestion charges economically defensible and politically acceptable.
3.19
A motorist entering a congested road suffers delay, but also causes
delay to others. A cost that a person imposes on someone else without paying
for is an 'external cost.' If motorists are not required to pay for the costs
they impose on others, their behaviour will not respond to the full cost, and
economically inefficient overuse of the road will result.[13] Congestion is the most
significant road-related external cost.[14]
3.20
Tailored 'congestion charges' are a way of reducing the external
congestion cost. Motorists are charged to use roads at the most congested times
and places.[15]
Those who value their use of the road less than the charge adjust their
behaviour by travelling less often, or at other times, or switching to public
transport. Those who value the use of the road more have a less congested trip.
The overall result for community welfare is positive.[16]
3.21
The BITRE has estimated that levying optimal road user charges in major
Australian cities could reduce peak hour travel by 20 per cent, overall travel
time by 40 per cent, and total traffic fuel consumption by close to 30 per
cent.[17]
3.22
In its 2006 review of urban congestion COAG said:
Pricing measures stand out as the most effective option for
alleviating congestion and improving the efficiency and productivity of the
transport network (at least when delivered as part of a total policy package of
complementary measures).... Those price-based measures with the primary purpose
of reducing congestion when and where it occurs are most effective. For
example, the London area-based pricing scheme implemented in 2003 has achieved
sustained improvements, including reduced traffic delays of 30-50 per cent,
reduced overall travel times by around half this percentage, improved journey
reliability, improved efficiency of distribution of goods and services, and improved
city amenity.[18]
3.23
The economic case for congestion charging is strong, and some peak
organisations now support it.[19]
However it has been politically difficult because of the perception that it is
'yet another tax on motorists'.[20]
3.24
One review of 25 examples around the world found that 'the common
experience was that pricing was only acceptable if this objective could be seen
as the solution to an already accepted problem, and a sufficiently widespread
acceptance that other existing policies are not capable of solving it.' To win
support for a proposal it was very important that the revenue was hypothecated
to transport improvements. It was found that channelling revenue to public
transport in particular increases public and political acceptance.[21]
3.25
Better public transport is essential to make congestion charges
politically palatable, by giving more motorists other choices:
Congestion pricing receives community support when consumers
are given sufficient alternatives to avoid the congestion charge and are
understanding of the benefits through reduced congestion. To achieve this, an
inner city congestion charge would need accompanying measures that improve the
frequency and reliability of public transport, and the provision of free bypass
or ring roads.[22]
3.26
In a recent review of this issue the BITRE commented:
Congestion charging is gaining favour as an enduring solution
that directly targets congestion, has strong theoretical foundations, has
worked well in key cities and provides an ‘innovative source of finance...
[however] the gains from a scheme depend on behavioural change for which
Australian cities may not be well-placed, due to insufficient coverage of high quality
public transport services.’[23]
Committee comment
3.27
The object of a congestion charge is to reduce congestion. It is
noteworthy that some peak organisations now support this. There are now a
number of successful examples around the world to look to. The committee
suggests that Australian governments should take a more active role in
educating the public about the benefits of congestion charges. To make the idea
more politically acceptable it is desirable to hypothecate the revenue to
transport improvements. This should include improving public transport
services, so that more motorists have alternatives to their cars.
Public transport to improve the urban amenity
3.28
Submissions argued that planning to give more priority to public
transport, and less priority to roads and cars, improves the the general urban
amenity (that is, the pleasantness of the urban environment for activities
other than driving). Car-limiting and public transport friendly planning policies
economise the amount of land needed for roads and parking, land which may be
put to more attractive uses; and they strengthen older activity centres which
are usually more accessible by public transport and have a better environment
for pedestrians:
[Waverley] Council’s transport policy aims to reduce the land
area of the public domain devoted to cars: private motor vehicle movements,
vehicular access and parking by 5% by 2010. This would free-up and allow the
re-allocation of land to other uses: widening footpaths, cycleway, parks and
community gardens.[24]
Where significant investment in public transport has taken
place, such as the construction of the northern and southern rail lines or bus
enhancements like the CAT in Central Perth within the more established areas of
the region; the public transport network has contributed to the overall
vitality and cohesion of the wider city. This has typically occurred through
‘place making’ or by reinforcing the role of existing activity centres and
former strip developments.[25]
3.29
There is strong worldwide evidence that public transport improvements (particularly
congestion-free railways or busways) increase nearby property values. For
example, according to a Transportation Research Board comparative study of
busways, Brisbane's south-east busway, opened in 2001, caused increases in
property values of about 4 per cent in Eight Mile Plains, 8 per cent in Upper
Mount Gravatt, and up to 20 per cent in Holland Park West.[26]
3.30
Better public transport should improve the viability of car share
schemes, since it makes it practical for more people to avoid owning a car by
using a mixture of public transport and car share cars as needed. Less car
ownership will reduce pressure on roads and parking space, particularly in
inner suburbs.[27]
Public transport for environmental goals
3.31
Environmental goals, other than the urban amenity goals just mentioned,
are -
3.32
These are closely related, since greenhouse emissions from transport are
roughly proportional to fossil fuels burnt.
3.33
Public transport is relevant to these goals because it is more energy
efficient than car transport. Urban buses, trams and trains use about a fifth
to half as much fuel as cars per passenger kilometre, depending on the mode and
the conditions.[28]
The advantage of public transport is much greater in peak periods, since in
peak periods, compared with the all day average, buses and trains tend to be
fuller while cars tend to be less full. The advantage would be greater if there
was more public transport use: see paragraph 3.45.[29]
Need to reduce oil dependence
3.34
Most of Australia's oil consumption (77 per cent) is used for transport,
and almost all transport is fuelled by oil (95 per cent). Australia's reliance
on imported oil is increasing. Oil prices have risen greatly in the last few
years and now stand at $US70 per barrel. Prices are predicted to remain high:
the International Energy Agency's 'reference scenario' assumes an average price
of $US100 per barrel to 2015 rising to $US120 to 2030 (in 2007 dollars), since
'marginal costs of supply exert upward pressure on prices', with increased
price volatility.[30]
3.35
There are concerns about when world oil production will peak. 'Peak oil'
activists predict a peak soon, with serious economic detriments if mitigating
action is not taken. Professor Aleklett of the Association for the Study of
Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) said:
We are at the peak now, on a plateau, and the question is
when we will start to decline from the plateau. I do not like to say that the
future is the end of the world. Instead I would like to say we have to build a
new world. We have to build a new crash mat and we have to build it as thick as
possible, because if we get a thick crash mat we will not be so hurt when we
fall down.[31]
3.36
Many others, including peak government agencies, accept that oil
production will peak, but have varying views on how soon it will be and how
concerning it is.[32]
The International Energy Agency has given strong warnings of a possible oil
'supply crunch' in the near term if there is not enough investment in new
capacity:
Some 30 million barrels a day of new capacity is needed by
2015. There remains a real risk that under-investment will cause an oil supply
crunch in that timeframe.... the gap now evident between what is currently being
built and what will be needed to keep pace with demand is set to widen sharply
after 2010.'[33]
3.37
Demand for oil is relatively inelastic because for its major use -
transport - there are no easy substitutes. This means that a relatively small
shortfall in supply can cause a large increase in price. This will increase the
volatility of the price in response to small changes in supply when there is
little spare capacity.
3.38
The Australian Government is currently working on an Energy White Paper
expected to be released late in 2009. The terms of reference mention among
other things 'conservation technologies', 'environmental sustainability' and
'energy security'. The discussion papers acknowledge the warnings in the World
Energy Outlook 2008 mentioned above - for example, 'There is increasing
recognition that a major decarbonisation of the world's energy system is likely
to occur in coming years'. They suggest a possible priority of 'reducing carbon
emissions and energy intensity'. However the possibility of an unexpectedly
early peak oil, which might require active mitigation, is not mentioned.[34]
Committee comment
3.39
It is regrettable that the discussion papers for the Energy White Paper
now under development do not mention the possibility of an unexpectedly early
peak oil which might require active mitigation. Given the risks involved, it
would be wise for Australia to pay more attention to 'peak oil' concerns, and
to adopt strong policies to reduce its oil dependence in the long term. Public
transport, because of its energy efficiency, has an obvious role to play in
that.
Transport greenhouse emissions
3.40
Transport accounts for 14.6 per cent of Australia's greenhouse
emissions.[35]
Passenger cars are responsible for 53 per cent of transport emissions.
Transport emissions are the second greatest source of of emissions growth after
stationary energy.[36]
Committee comment
3.41
There is an obvious role for public transport to improve the energy
efficiency of urban transport. In relation to greenhouse emissions, there is
extra advantage in that electric rail can use renewable power.
3.42
The committee acknowledges that the principle of the government's Carbon
Pollution Reduction Scheme is to allow market forces to focus greenhouse
mitigation actions where they are most cost-effective. There is no particular
demand for all sectors to contribute equally: if mitigation is more costly in
transport than some other sector, there will be less mitigation in transport.
3.43
However, given the growth in transport emissions, the committee does not
think it is satisfactory to imply that, having instituted the Carbon Pollution
Reduction Scheme, the Australian Government does not need to take any interest
in other avenues of mitigation in transport.[37]
3.44
Submissions stressed that there should be a multi-faceted approach to
reducing transport emissions, of which a carbon charge is one element. This
will include more ambitious fuel efficiency standards for cars, travel demand
management; road pricing that reflects the full costs of road transport;
landuse planning policies to reduce the demand for travel; and better public
transport so that motorists facing higher fuels prices have more alternatives.[38]
3.45
The present car/public transport modal split in Australian cities is
about 90%/10% on average. This may suggest that any realistically achievable
increase in public transport use (for example, an 80/20 split, which is a goal
in some policies), would still have only a small effect on total transport energy
use. However the benefits would be increased by these considerations:
-
On average one public transport trip tends to replace more than
one car trip, as people adjust their habits to travel more efficiently; so
increasing public transport mode share implies decreasing total travel.[39]
-
While the average bus/train trip is about twice as fuel
efficient as the average car trip, the gain from transferring the marginal trip
will be much greater, since the marginal energy cost of putting an extra rider
on an existing train or bus service is practically zero. Increasing public
transport use implies an increasing average load factor, which will increase
the energy advantage of public transport.[40]
-
Where greater public transport use reduces traffic congestion,
the remaining motorists may enjoy greater fuel efficiency in the less congested
conditions.
Public transport to promote public health
3.46
Health costs of the current transport mix include -
-
road deaths and injuries;
-
effects of motor vehicle pollution;
-
effects of an inactive, car-dependent lifestyle.
3.47
Greater public transport use, implying less car use, has benefits in
reducing these costs.
Reducing the road toll
3.48
In 2000 the BTRE estimated road crash costs 'conservatively' at nearly
$15 billion per year (1996 dollars), comprising human costs $8.3 billion,
vehicle costs $4.1 billion, and general costs $2.5 billion. Since then road
deaths have fallen, but injuries requiring hospitalisation have increased. In
2005-06 31,204 people were seriously injured in road crashes. A 2006 study
estimated the road crash cost in 2003 at $17 billion. New estimates are now in
preparation by the BITRE.[41]
3.49
Crash costs broken down by urban/ non-urban are not available; but if at
a guess half the costs were incurred in major urban areas, it implies that a
one per cent reduction in traffic created by a shift to public transport and
active transport in these areas could save $85 million per year.[42]
Reducing health impacts of
pollution
3.50
Pollution in the form of particulates and noxious gases from motor
vehicles increases ill health from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.
Particulates are microscopic solid particles produced by the combustion of
petrol and diesel and, combined with road dust, are suspended in the air and
inhaled. This contributes to a cumulative decrease in lung function efficiency
and can contribute to the incidence of breathlessness, heart disease and
asthma. There is increasing recognition that even small exposures are injurious.[43]
3.51
Motor vehicles are the main cause of air pollution in cities. The BTRE
has estimated that in 2000 motor vehicle pollution accounted for between 900
and 4500 morbidity cases, and between 900 and 2000 early deaths (this may be
compared with Australia's road toll of 1,464 dead in 2008). The economic cost
of pollution-related morbidity in 2000 was estimated at between $0.4 billion
and $1.2 billion, and the economic cost of premature mortality was estimated at
between $1.1 billion and $2.6 billion.[44]
3.52
A shift from car travel to public transport will help reduce air
pollution. While overall a very large increase in public transport use would be
needed to have more than a small marginal effect on pollution (because of the
low public transport mode share at present), the prospects of public transport
are best in more congested areas, and these are the areas that suffer most
pollution.[45]
Public transport for a more active
lifestyle
3.53
There has been much comment in recent years about the 'obesity epidemic'.
According to Doctors for the Environment Australia:
Australia faces an epidemic of obesity, with almost 60% of
Australian adults and 25% of children being obese or overweight, with type 2
diabetes and other adverse health effects from physical inactivity and unhealthy
diets prevailing... Currently diabetes is estimated to cost $6 billion annually.
This is expected to double by 2020.[46]
3.54
Inactive lifestyles associated with excessive car use are a significant
part of the problem:
People who live in sprawling suburbs are more likely to drive
their cars and have higher body mass indexes.[47]
Research has indicated that each additional hour of daily
driving leads to a 6% increase in the likelihood of obesity.[48]
3.55
Use of public transport and active transport can help ensure that people
have minimum activity levels:
Daily activities such as walking, cycling to the shops or to
public transport, can provide the level of physical activity recommended in the
National Physical Activity Guidelines. In studies of cities throughout the
world a positive relationship has been found between availability of public
transport and lower levels of obesity. This is simply due to factors such as
commuters needing to walk to and from the bus, tram and train stops.[49]
As little as 30 minutes exercise daily helps to promote
weight loss and improve physical fitness.....Even moderate exercise via endorphin
release in the brain as well as the positive benefits of feeling fitter
promotes psychological wellbeing. Use of public transport of itself promotes
exercise in that people need to get to transport nodes, either by walking or
bicycling.[50]
3.56
Recent studies have confirmed that public transport use is associated
with greater physical activity, after controlling for other variables.[51]
Committee comment
3.57
In the committee's view the connection between car-dependent lifestyles,
inactivity and the incidence of overweight is a serious matter which needs to
be taken up more vigorously in both public health policies and urban planning
policies.
3.58
Building urban fringe developments in a way that makes it inevitable
that more than 90 per cent of the residents' trips will be by car should be
regarded as no more acceptable than building on contaminated land.
Public transport to reduce transport disadvantage and social isolation
3.59
Many submissions noted that public transport is important to reduce the
transport disadvantage and social isolation.[52]
3.60
'Transport disadvantage' has two aspects: inadequate public transport
for people who do not have licences or cars (or not enough cars for the needs
of all household members); and the possibly excessive burden of car costs for
those who are forced to have cars (or more cars than they might want) because
of poor public transport.[53]
3.61
The Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC) described
research that found that almost a third of Sydney people live in transport
disadvantaged census collector districts. Over half of those people were
located in western Sydney:
International studies... point to a strong evidence base that a
lack of suitable and affordable public transport can be a significant barrier
to participation in work and education and access to health services, shopping
and social, cultural and recreational activities for socially disadvantaged
people.[54]
3.62
Similarly in Melbourne, 83% of residents do not live within access of an
at least half hourly full time bus service.[55]
3.63
For those who do have cars the cost of the car (or the second car) may
be an excessive burden of necessity, especially for people of lower
socio-economic status in the outer suburbs:
An important and generally unique feature of Australian
cities is the concentration of lower income and financially marginalized
residents in fringe urban areas. There are strong relationships between where
disadvantaged Australians live and the lack of public transport. There is also
evidence that this has encouraged many low income families to be become car
dependent. As a result a high share of low income households on the fringe of
our cities have high car ownership despite high costs of running cars. The
result is "transport poverty". Providing even a minimum public
transport level of service can provide a significant release for these
pressures.[56]
3.64
In Melbourne 20 per cent of households with income below $500 per week
are running two or more cars. Fifty-eight per cent of households in north west
Sydney have two or more cars.[57]
3.65
Outer suburban people and rural and regional people with high car use
will be particularly vulnerable to rising oil prices.[58]
3.66
In light of these points the Australasian Railway Association suggested
that public transport services can be regarded as 'as essential as health
services...'
Like health services, transport services have ‘socio‐technical’ content and
both are identified as sectors ripe for greater Commonwealth investment and accountability
for sustainability.[59]
3.67
Rural and regional people without cars suffer particular transport
disadvantage. Many submissions described the difficulties of life for people
without cars or driver's licences - for example, difficulties that the elderly
have in getting to doctor's appointments, or that youth have in gaining the
independence they need. This particularly applies to transport from the smaller
towns to the regional centres. Providing
even a little public transport can greatly increase these people's opportunities.[60]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page