Chapter 4
Improving public transport
4.1
This chapter summarises comments in submissions about how public
transport should be improved.
4.2
Many of the points below are matters of organisational efficiency which
apply regardless of the level of funding available ('need for better services
and more infrastructure' are the obvious exceptions).
Need for better services
4.3
The most prominent comment in submissions was the need for better
services.
4.4
The main elements of public transport service quality are route
coverage, frequency, operating hours, speed and comfort.
4.5
Many areas of Australian cities have adequate route coverage,[1]
but score poorly on frequency, operating hours and speed. Bus/tram services in
inner areas are often adequately frequent (four per hour or more during the
daytime), but very slow and unreliable because of traffic congestion. Bus services
in outer areas are usually infrequent (two per hour or less) and not full-time.
They are often slowed by extremely circuitous routes which are designed to give
the greatest route coverage at least cost.[2]
4.6
A frequency of at least four per hour is an important threshold of
service quality. Four to six per hour (one each 10-15 minutes) is the level
where people start to not bother looking at the timetable ('turn up and go').
It is the level needed to encourage more interchange trips, as discussed below
(paragraph 4.12ff).[3]
4.7
To improve public transport speed the major focus will have to be tram
and bus priority measures, the aim of which is to make services congestion-free.[4]
These measures are also very important to improve reliability, since delay in
traffic congestion is the major cause of unreliable service (and unreliable
service is very detrimental to the rider's experience even if the nominal
frequency is good).[5]
4.8
Speed and frequency combine to make total trip time, including waiting
time, perceived by the rider, so tradeoffs between them are possible. Frequency
and reliability will be more important for shorter trips, especially transfer
trips (trips with interchange between two public transport services). Linehaul
speed will still be important for longer trips between major interchange
points.
4.9
Comfort involves both the design of the vehicle and the level of
crowdedness. It is to be expected that as general living standards improve
comfort becomes relatively more important, as can be seen in the improving
design of trains and buses as well as cars (with air-conditioning standard, for
example). Mr Litman (Victoria Transport Policy Institute) suggested that public
transport operators should focus more on comfort as a way of marketing against
the convenience of car travel.[6]
Both actual and perceived safety and security concerns should also be
addressed.
Committee comment
4.10
More frequent services will increase ridership, but it is unlikely that
the extra ridership will be enough to cover the extra operating costs.[7]
The overall operating subsidy needed will probably increase (an exception may be
where new services create a 'network effect', as discussed below).
4.11
The present level of public transport service represents the communally
accepted compromise between service quality and subsidy cost. A challenge for
governments is how to improve infrequent 'social service' public transport to
the point where it can begin to attract 'choice' riders, without excessively
increasing the cost of public subsidy. The measures discussed below should help
do this, as they improve service quality independent of frequency.
Need for a complete network
4.12
Historic public transport routes are mostly radial routes focussed on
central business districts (especially for rail). However travel to central
business districts is now only a small proportion of total travel.[8]
4.13
Submissions argued that to encourage use of public transport for a wider
variety of trips, it is important to create a complete network. This requires a
complete grid or spider's web of routes with sufficiently frequent services;
quality interchange facilities; timetables and ticketing that facilitate
transfers; excellent information services; and preferably a single metropolitan
public transport authority to plan and promote these things (some of these
points are expanded below).[9]
4.14
In practice this requires improving cross-suburban routes to create the
parts of the grid or spider's web that are not served by existing radial
services. This will mostly be by bus.[10][11]
4.15
With a complete network and convenient transfers the effective reach of
the network may be greatly increased very cost effectively, as public transport
becomes more attractive for people whose origin and destination do not happen
to lie on a single route.
In establishing a role for public transport, it should be
enshrined in the motto of delivering “frequency, connectivity and visibility”... Connectivity
refers to the provision of door-to-door services with minimum delay and almost
seamless interchanges. Visibility is predominantly knowing where the mode is
coming from and going to, and when.. It is all about networks, not corridors
per se.[12]
4.16
For example, comparing Melbourne with Toronto (which is often cited for
its well-managed, integrated public transport service): though they have
similar population and urban form, Toronto has a more rational grid of routes
and better planned interchanges. It has a much higher proportion of linked
trips (trips that involve transfer between two or more public transport
vehicles) and a much higher occurrence of riders accessing train stations by
bus. Toronto also has much higher public transport use per person than
Melbourne. European cities with still higher public transport use have a still
higher proportion of linked trips.[13]
Need for a legible network and
integrated information services
4.17
To encourage occasional users and transfer trips, it is essential to
have a legible network of routes and excellent information about timetables and
ticketing.
4.18
In this regard the achievements of Australia's authorities are mixed.
Some cities have integrated information and marketing under a single brand,
even where service provision is contracted out (eg Transperth). In Sydney the
separate government rail and bus authorities, on their websites, do not mention
each other's existence.[14]
4.19
A legible network requires not only good information, but a simple route
structure:
Much evidence now supports the view that higher ridership can
be achieved in public transport systems through the operation of frequency and
simple network structures....[15]
It is imperative that bus routes either provide fast, direct
links between hubs (Smartbus) or slower, circuitous service to access a maximum
number of households within walking distance, rather than both functions at a
time.[16]
4.20
These things are particularly important to attract new and infrequent
riders and offpeak riders. It is important to market to these groups, not only
to the city commuters who are the focus of the most current concerns about
overcrowding, because accommodating more offpeak riders on existing services
has low marginal cost and will improve cost recovery.
To encourage people to try public transport and then stick
with it, we need to make their first public transport experience a good one. We
need to give them information in advance on what options are available and how
to use public transport. This includes route maps, timetables, instructions on
how to buy tickets.[17]
Need for convenient ticketing
4.21
It is essential to have convenient ticketing valid on all modes, and a
fare structure which does not penalise transfers.[18]
4.22
Older systems typically have prepaid multiple ride tickets sold off the
vehicle: one fare debited allows any number of boardings (bus or train) within
a period (typically 1 ½ to 2 hours) to allow transfers (Melbourne, Canberra,
Adelaide, Darwin, Newcastle buses, Hobart).
4.23
Modern systems use a stored value smartcard which is debited by tagging
on and off the vehicle (Brisbane, Perth and many overseas cities). The user
tops up the card value as needed. The system may be able to debit a savings
account automatically, in which case the user never has to think about paying a
public transport fare again. This is an important convenience for infrequent users
who are more likely to be unfamiliar with the ticketing system.
4.24
Improvements may be very cost-effective. When a new ticketing system was
introduced in Brisbane in 2004 public transport use jumped significantly.[19]
4.25
Usually single cash fares are still available on buses. This is
desirable so as not to discourage occasional users.
Committee comment
4.26
Giving due attention to the points above is favourable to encouraging
off-peak and infrequent riders, not only the city commuters who are the focus
of most current concerns about overcrowding. Encouraging offpeak riders is
important because it will improve cost recovery (since extra offpeak riders can
be handled at little marginal cost). Encouraging infrequent riders is important
in order to increase community awareness of public transport.
Need to integrate cycling and walking measures with public transport
4.27
Submissions noted the need to plan measures to encourage cycling and
walking consistently with public transport measures, as they support each
other. Cycling can greatly increase the catchment area of train stations, while
almost all public transport trips have a walking element:
Cycling has to be seen as part of the mainstream transport
system....There is a very strong body of science that says that the value of
public transport use is multiplied several times when you increase the connectivity
between cycling and walking activity and using buses and trains.[20]
4.28
The Bicycle Network submitted that cycling is very suitable to replace
many short car trips to train stations. Most of these trips are less than 5 km
long, and providing commuter carparks at stations is very expensive by
comparison with providing facilities for bicycles. A paved car parking space
costs $5,000-$15,000 (not including land value); by comparison, a cage for 26
bicycles costs $60,000.[21]
4.29
Submissions noted initiatives in Australia and elsewhere to enable
bicycles to be carried on public transport: for example, racks on buses (Canberra)
and special compartments on trains (eg Portland Oregon, San Francisco).
Submissions urged that Australian authorities should implement these measures.[22]
4.30
Submissions urged the need to fund infrastructure improvements to enable
safe cycling, as lack of safe routes is the greatest disincentive:
The reason people are not riding is not because they do not
have a bike. It is because they do not have somewhere to ride. As soon as you
provide places to ride, people will get bikes.[23]
Well maintained, safe to use (free from obstacles, separated
from traffic) and secure (well lit, patrolled) network of walking and cycle
ways, that actually follow routes that people tend to use (rather than
following vacant usable land), will promote their use.[24]
4.31
Brisbane City Council described its city cycle amenities:
We have provided the first end-of-bike-ride facility in
Australia, down at King George Square... That provides showers, lockers, laundry
services and hair dryers so that you do not have to have helmet hair, which is
a big issue. What amazes us are the thousands of people who go out in the
morning from five to six to get their cycling exercise then go home, have a
shower and get in the car and come in to work. What we are trying to do is encourage
them to commute to work.[25]
4.32
The Australian National Cycling Strategy 2005 was developed by the
Australian Bicycle Council (an association of relevant government agencies such
as road and traffic authorities and other stakeholders). It aims to encourage
cycling with policies such as:
-
cycling should be an essential consideration in integrated land
use and transport planning;
-
suitable infrastructure and facilities should be provided; and
-
cycling should be supported and promoted.
4.33
The strategy is an 'agreement to cooperate', and is not prescriptive. It
leaves it to the member governments to decide what targets they will establish
for increasing cycling.[26]
4.34
Submissions urged Australian Government assistance to promote cycling.[27]
Submissions noted the need for more fine-grained planning of the urban environment
to facilitate walking:
[Transport planning] should also entail attention to the
physical facilities for access and connectivity for people walking and cycling
– often the fine-grained details that can make such a difference, such as the
cross-ability of an intersection or shelters from rain and sun.[28]
Need for better institutional arrangements
4.35
Submissions stressed the need for good governance to make sure that the
city's public transport services are delivered effectively and to make sure
that infrastructure investment is prioritised widely.
4.36
Infrastructure Australia in a recent report to the Australian government
said similarly:
Simply investing in more capacity is not the only requirement
to improve public transport in Australia. Public transport is not administered
and managed in Australian cities as well as in many cities overseas. With more
emphasis on public transport in the future, and with more funds set to be
invested, governments need to ensure that public transport meets best practice and
is as efficient as possible... Public transport administration in Australia could
benefit from a more outwardlooking approach including cooperation and
communication with other agencies and governments when planning for the future..
With the Commonwealth signalling that it might invest in urban transport
systems as a means to boost national productivity, now is the time for
nationwide reform to improve public transport governance.[29]
4.37
In evidence to this inquiry the key element of good governance was
usually said to be a single regional public transport authority with the power
and responsibility to plan and deliver the city's public transport service in an
integrated way under a single brand (whether or not service provision is
contracted out).[30]
4.38
Perth has such an authority (Transperth). Brisbane has recently
established one.[31]
Sydney and Melbourne do not. Melbourne's franchising out of train and tram operations
since 1999 has been particularly criticised for creating a lack of clear
accountability for managing the whole network:
No-one is in charge. Whose job is it to make the bus connect
with the train in Melbourne? It is kind of everyone’s and therefore it is
nobody’s... we do not have anyone in charge because our public transport system
is franchised. We do have a departmental regulator but they collect statistics
on things and report how often trains are late and so on. They do not integrate
and knit all the different parts of the system together.[32]
Metlink has been established as an agency owned by the two
operators and responsible for revenue distribution and user information.... However,
Metlink’s role is not that of an accountable public transport agency -
comparable, for instance, to Western Australia’s TransPerth or Vancouver’s
TransLink - with the authority to conduct comprehensive planning for network
and service improvements, and implement them independently of the commercial
interests of the operators. As a result, the involvement of the public sector
in network and service development across the train and tram operations remains
largely passive.[33]
4.39
Zurich was mentioned as a good model in which service provision is
contracted out, but the central agency remains fully responsible for planning
the total network and ensuring performance by the contractors, and politically
responsible for the outcome:
Their traffic planning division has only six staff and they
do all the timetabling, coordination and integration. The reason they are able
to do that is that they have other agencies which, by and large, are public
agencies such as the Swiss Federal Railways which provide the services for them...
The overall coordinating agency runs not just timetables and integrates things
but also keeps an eye on the people providing the services to make sure that
they do so competently and efficiently.[34]
4.40
Submissions argued that Australian Government funding should be
conditional on best practice governance, including the presence of a regional public
transport authority to plan and deliver a fully integrated network service.[35]
Committee comment
4.41
The Committee agrees that Australian Government funding for transport
initiatives should be conditional on reforms to state and territory transport
and planning departments to create central coordinating agencies along the
model of the Public Transport Authority of Western Australia.
Need for a strategic transport plan
4.42
Submissions stressed the need for a long term strategic transport plan
for the city as a whole, which has goals and actions detailed enough for
performance to be monitored:
While comprehensive transport policy statements that set out
the governmental goals to be pursued in a sector like transport may be unusual,
the existence of integrated transport plans (e.g. for a city or larger region)
that set out system development requirements (including infrastructure
development needs) to meet these goals, with clearly defined roles and
responsibilities for delivering and updating the plans and maintaining long
term plan currency (with regular update), is equally unusual. This has become
known in some conversations as the ‘tactical level gap’. This tactical level
weakness reflects an inability, or unwillingness, on the part of governments,
mainly at State level, where most infrastructure development responsibilities
lie, to take a long term strategic view of sectoral development needs and to
maintain the commitment.[36]
4.43
Submissions regretted what they saw as a lack of consistency and follow
through in Sydney and Melbourne transport planning in particular:
For too long planning in NSW has been a fragmented, ad-hoc
process undertaken by a range of government and non-government agencies often
operating in complete isolation from each other. As a result many transport
plans have lacked a strategic or long-term focus, have incorporated conflicting
priorities and are often ambivalent in terms of specific commitments and
undertakings. Plan-making has become largely marginalised from the Government’s
budget-setting process and has been “captured” by the State Treasury and some
large agencies such as the RTA.[37]
Although the Victorian Government’s Meeting Our Transport
Challenges (MOTC) document theoretically allocated a good proportion of the
total package to public transport, many of the public transport proposals were
in the distant future or poorly directed. A number of the MOTC public transport
proposals now appear to have been dropped in the government’s latest Victorian
Transport Plan.[38]
4.44
Some submitters suggested that Australian Government funding for
transport infrastructure projects should be conditional on the existence of a
strategic plan, with adequately detailed goals, actions and performance
criteria so that the success of projects can be assessed, and evidence that the
project is consistent with the plan.[39]
Need to integrate transport planning and urban planning
4.45
Submissions stressed the need to integrate transport planning with urban
planning generally. The public transport will not attract riders if the pattern
of development in the region makes it impossible to plan an efficient network
that serves the places where people want to go. For example:
The area between Wallsend and Minmi has been an ongoing development
for many years. The original road between Wallsend and Minmi was a narrow bitumen
road. Now it looks like the main stem of a bunch of grapes with small
residential areas hanging off it like berries. A nightmare to plan movements of
buses to reasonably service the area.[40]
4.46
Major city strategic plans invariably express a goal of making urban
development more conducive to public transport use - for example, by promoting
infill development, slowing urban fringe development, and concentrating
commercial development in selected regional centres which can be the focus of
logical public transport networks.[41]
4.47
Measures to reduce car-dependence and make public transport work better
in new suburbs include:
-
reserving new corridors for fast public transport early in the
planning of greenfields developments;
-
subdivisions planned with a street pattern that allows buses to
be routed efficiently, with good pedestrian access from bus stops to the
surrounding area;
-
activity centres located rationally so they can be the focus of
transport networks or interchange points;
-
design principles that give high priority to a quality
environment for cyclists and pedestrians - for example, cycle-friendly road
design, permeable street layouts which do not force circuitous trips, and
suitably placed local and neighbourhood centres to promote walking and cycling
for trips within the neighbourhood;
-
public transport services provided from the outset, rather than
being retrofitted years later, after the new residents have established
car-dependent habits;
-
'transit oriented development' - medium density mixed-use
development around public transport nodes; and
-
increase in residential density generally (since this makes
public transport services more viable).[42]
4.48
Increasing residential density in established areas ('urban
consolidation'), is controversial. However it should be stressed that general
urban consolidation is not the same as transit-oriented development. Urban
consolidation is usually taken to mean the attempt to increase population over
wide areas of established suburbs by infill development or rezoning for denser
development. Capital city strategic plans now commonly aim to house a
significant proportion of future population growth within the existing urban
footprint, to limit the amount of greenfields development at the fringe.[43]
Undiscriminating urban consolidation usually arouses strong opposition from existing
residents, and experts debate whether the benefits are worth the costs.[44]
Committee comment
4.49
Most public discussion of promoting public transport focuses on the
technicalities of improving the public transport service, and unfortunately
gives little attention to the important land use planning connection. It should
always be stressed that all land use planning is transport planning, as land
use planning decisions have a dominating effect on people's travel habits. The
best public transport service will not attract riders if the nature of urban
development in the catchment area makes it impossible for the route to serve
people's needs.
4.50
Urban strategic planning is the responsibility of State and Territory
governments. The needed initiatives involve State and local government. Most of
them require regional scale planning going beyond the boundaries of any one
local government area. The right institutional arrangements and powers are
needed to ensure that the planning and the execution are coherent.
4.51
The committee takes no position here on the urban consolidation debate,
but stresses that many other planning initiatives to promote walking, cycling
and public transport, as noted above, can and should be done in any case,
regardless of views about the best overall urban population density.
4.52
Governments who promote urban consolidation to reduce car use need to
remember that the planning policy is not enough: improved public transport must
also be provided. Denser population in areas where existing public transport is
mediocre or overloaded, without improvement, will simply increase traffic
congestion.
Need for infrastructure investment
4.53
Most submissions argued the need for significant investment in public
transport infrastructure. However they stressed the need for orderly cost benefit
analysis and prioritisation, in keeping with a city-wide long term strategic
transport plan.[45]
4.54
Infrastructure Australia, a statutory authority established in 2008 to
advise on infrastructure funding, recently commented:
In large measure, Australian cities have drawn upon the
investment in rail networks made in the early to mid twentieth century. Major
new investment is now needed to sustain our cities over the next several decades
and beyond. Increased network capacity is required to meet population-driven patronage
growth and to provide the scope for significant mode shift from private
vehicles to public transport.[46]
4.55
Most Australian governments have recently made or are planning major
investments in key public transport corridors (busways in Brisbane, heavy rail
elsewhere).[47]
The Australian government in the May 2009 budget committed to funding a number
of major public transport projects. They include Regional Rail Express (Tarneit
link) in Melbourne, Gold Coast light rail in Queensland; Gawler Rail line
modernisation in Adelaide; Seaford to Noarlunga rail extension in Adelaide; and
Adelaide O-bahn buslane extension. The Australian Government is also
contributing to preconstruction or feasibility work on the West Metro (Sydney),
East-West tunnel (Melbourne) and Brisbane inner city rail expansion. The total
Australian Government commitment to these projects is about $4.6 billion.[48]
4.56
There was some discussion in evidence of the merits of light rail and
bus rapid transit.[49]
The consensus was that they have different strengths. Light rail provides
higher quality service at higher capital cost, and (it is argued) can more successfully
reshape urban development towards public transport use because of its
visibility and permanence. High quality bus rapid transit can provide similar
benefits (possibly not to the same extent) at lower capital cost, and has
flexibility as buses can move from the busway onto local streets.[50]
Which of them is more economical on operating costs will depend on the particular
situation.[51]
4.57
The most common view was that it is wrong to say that one is generally
superior to the other: it is a matter of 'horses for courses' depending on the
situation.[52]
Brisbane's high quality busways, though expensive, are generally regarded as successful;[53]
on the other hand the Gold Coast, after considering both options closely, has chosen
light rail.[54][55]
4.58
Submissions noted that in any case there is a strong need for more
widespread bus/tram priority measures to make street public transport congestion-free
more widely than is possible by building only trunk route busways.[56]
Committee comment
4.59
The committee agrees that significant catch-up investment in public
transport infrastructure is needed, particularly in light of the current strong
growth in patronage, and the inevitability that congestion-free public
transport will be more important in future as our cities become bigger and more
congested.
4.60
Investment may be by government, subject to the normal discipline of
ensuring that the benefits will outweigh the costs taking account of
non-financial matters, or by public-private partnership where the situation
makes that practical. This will tend to be where it is practical to recover
costs through direct user charges. Where benefits are widely spread among the
community at large or it is not practical to recover costs commercially, it is
necessary to make the investment publicly.[57]
Related issues are discussed in Infrastructure Australia's December 2008
report.[58]
These issues were not much mentioned in evidence to this inquiry and will not
be considered further here.
4.61
The committee sounds these cautions:
-
High profile high cost projects (current proposals are mostly
rail) may be needed as once in a generation city-shaping initiatives; however
they should not be allowed to remove attention from the need for continuous
improvement to the total network (such as bus/tram priority measures, better
interchange arrangements, coordinated timetabling, real time information
systems).
-
Major projects should be consistent with a long term strategic
transport plan for the city, and should be properly justified and prioritised
by cost benefit analysis.
-
Cost benefit analysis should give adequate attention to
externalities, and to matters that are hard to quantify or have not been
sufficiently noted in the past (such as agglomeration benefits).[59]
-
If public-private partnerships are used, they should not be
allowed to bias decision-making towards projects that find private partners
more easily, at the expense of other projects that may be a higher priority for
the city's overall transport plan.
Issues for rural and regional public transport
4.62
Many submissions raised concerns about poor public transport in rural
and regional areas. For example:
The levels of investment in rural and regional services is
negligible in comparison to metropolitan areas. This is quite apparent in the
State Plan; State Infrastructure Strategy and the Ministry of Transport’s
Accessible Transport Action Plan for NSW Transport, Roads and Maritime
Agencies.[60]
To date, local government does not have the financial funding
capacity to invest the required money and the State Government has not shown
the same commitment to Regional areas as it has done to Metropolitan areas. Our
region supports nearly 40,000 people spread over 5 major urban towns and
several smaller rural communities. Combined they would qualify for some State
Government help – individually they don’t.... When compared to the tax-payer
funds which are expended on city dwellers, the effort spent on rural residents
is minuscule. In many cases, a single passenger trip in the city, is subsidised
by up to $10. Some people in rural areas would not get that level of subsidy in
a year. There is no equity of public transport services between the city and
regional taxpayers.[61]
4.63
Local town services, where they exist, have the features of outer
suburban services: they are mostly infrequent 'social service' services for
non-drivers, which cannot attract 'choice' customers. Intertown services connecting
smaller towns to regional centres are usually extremely infrequent, and may
have poor coordination of information services and marketing, which discourages
occasional users.
4.64
Submissions noted not only poor basic services, but deficiencies of
organisation and coordination which limit the usefulness of such services as do
exist. For example:
Access to the school bus for regular and senior passengers is
at the discretion of the bus operator.... Buses to Canberra and Parramatta cannot
set down in Moruya as this is less than 30kms from Tuross Head.... It will be
patently obvious that there are some serious incongruities when it is possible
to travel from the Tuross Head highway turn off point to Newcastle for $2.50 for
a journey in one day and it is not possible to commute to Moruya for all the immediate
requirements of community living. The whole range of services is fraught with
complexities and inconsistencies...[62]
[Transport infoline website and call centre] services are not
available for transport services across rural and regional NSW.[63]
4.65
Cross-border coordination problems also exist. For example, TOOT
suggested that the regional transport service linking the Northern Rivers of
NSW to Brisbane would probably be much better if there was not a state border
between them.[64]
Committee comment
4.66
As with suburban public transport, a key challenge for governments is to
provide more effective service without excessively increasing the cost in
public subsidy. However even without increasing operational budgets there is
obviously room for improvement in providing better centralised information and
marketing, and coordinating services so that the timetables are rational and
riders are not hampered by bureaucratic restrictions relating to operators'
territories.
Special needs public transport, community transport
4.67
Submissions noted that some needs which are currently met inadequately
or not at all by regular public transport may be more suitable for community
transport.
Providing improved access opportunities by public transport
will sometimes be achieved by improving route bus service levels. In other
situations, it can be achieved by increasing the use of existing school bus
services, with suitable contractual variations to encourage greater use of
these vehicles or it may be met by use of community transport services. Community
transport is a growing sector servicing a large number of community needs such
as the distribution of food to the elderly, taking the disabled to education,
shopping, medical and other destinations. With an ageing population and high
fuel costs long term, this service sector is likely to be increasingly
demanded. It is increasingly being considered as a form of public transport in
its own right.[65]
4.68
'Community transport' has no precise boundaries, but usually refers to
transport more tailored to special needs than is possible with regular public
transport - for example, serving the health care or social needs of people with
disabilities or the frail elderly. It may be offered by local councils or charitable
groups using buses, minibuses or cars. It has a focus on door-to-door service,
but may also involve scheduled services (for example, a weekly community bus). Drivers
are often volunteers.
4.69
Community transport is funded by Local Councils, or by the Commonwealth/State
Home and Community Care Program (HACC), or by states separately from HACC.[66]
Eligibility criteria typically limit the use of community transport services
to particular categories of people and/or types of trips.[67]
4.70
A review of HACC by the Bus Industry Confederation (BIC) found that in
2002-03 there were approximately 3,000 HACC funded organisations providing
services to 700,000 people a year. HACC transport serviced 4.7 million trips
with a national spending of $44.1 million.[68]
The Municipal Association of Victoria advised that Victorian Councils spend
about $5.8 million per year administering community transport. This rises to
about $21.3 million if the cost of vehicles and contributions to other
community transport services are added:
The lack of investment for regional public transport, both
train and coach services, has resulted in councils and not-for-profit
organisations providing buses or trying to use whatever transport
infrastructure is within those towns to move people around...councils have really
stepped up to the plate to fulfill a gap in transport...[69]
4.71
Community transport needs are increasing because of the aging population
and the trend to regional centralisation of health services and similar social
services.[70]
Submissions noted the increasing burden that is falling on local councils who
provide transport not only for special needs groups but also to make up for the
lack of adequate regular public transport. For example, the Western Australian
Local Government Association (WALGA) described the situation in the Shire of
Roebourne:
There is no dedicated public transport within or connecting
towns in the Shire of Roebourne, Over the past 5 years, the Shire of Roebourne
has sought to provide a transport option for the residents... Saturday bus is
funded by PTA. Sunday bus is jointly funded by Shire of Roebourne, Rio Tinto
and PTA... Feedback from the Shire is that the community bus is not meeting fully
the needs of the community: the timetable is very limited... The general feeling
is that PTA should fund public transport.[71]
4.72
Submissions suggested that the interface between regular public
transport and community transport could be better organised to give more cost
effective service:
The community bus service has only recently been increased to
a weekly run and this service could be folded into a regular daily service and
for those who required personal assistance because of special needs could be
aided in that environment rather than on the community bus...[72]
When allowance is made for school transport services,
regional route bus services and community transport, including HACC funded
initiatives, it is apparent that there are many resources currently being devoted
to providing mobility for various categories of people who are often transport
disadvantaged, in regional Australia. However, eligibility criteria tend to
exclude some categories of traveller and/or types of trips. Yet there is often
physical capacity for additional travellers to have their needs met.[73]
4.73
The Australian Taxi Industry Association suggested that taxis should be
used more for community transport.[74]
The Community Transport Organisation disagreed on the grounds that community
transport is a specialised service requiring different skills, and that
community transport organisations do already use taxis where appropriate.[75]
4.74
Julia Farr Association described the difficulties that people with
disabilities have with transport - in particular, limited availability of
accessible taxis; slow progress of public transport operators towards meeting the
2002 Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport; and the declining
availability of air travel to people with special needs, for a number of
reasons which may be summarised as the unhelpful attitude of operators.[76]
Committee comment
General committee comment: need to plan for long term change
4.75
To return to public transport more generally: the aim of the measures
mentioned above is to change people’s travel behaviour in favour of more
sustainable, less car-dependent behaviour, leading to cleaner and less
congested cities. That change may be slow, as it requires changing patterns of
urban development and human behaviour developed over two generations.
4.76
The important thing is to set a trend to reduce car-dependence in the
long term by creating incentives for behaviour change and providing the means
for that change to occur. In the foreseeable future walking, cycling and public
transport will continue to be unsuitable for many travel needs. The aim is to make
it easier for people to use them where they are suitable. On the positive side,
because the present public transport share is so low, only a small behavioural
change by motorists is needed to greatly increase public transport use. This
would make better services more viable.[77]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page