Services, Infrastructure & Development Patterns. How much of each in the mix?

[Gazza]

Services, Infrastructure & Development. How much of each in the mix?

I thought this would be an interesting topic.
There are a few levers you can pull to improve public transport patronage and reduce car usage.

Services.

 This is an obvious one. Better frequency can attract passengers, so can better speed (Eg full time express).
Advantages are that its probably the quickest to implement and cheaper up front in terms of not needing major construction, and it does make PT more useful.

Disadvantages are that you are still in the real world and there are upper limits to how far service improvements can get you.
Eg the 140/150 combine to provide very high frequency to Browns Plains and that frequency has attracted patronage, but ultimately its still 1 hour on a bus to go 30km, which will put some potential users off.
More services eventually demand infrastructure, eg its doubtful the 140/150 would have worked as well without having busway for part of the trip.
Likewise, somewhere like the SC.
There were rail buses to improve the frequency in the face of limited infrastructure, but the rail buses remained unpopular.

Infrastructure

Infrastructure can have the advantage of locking in step improvements to speed and capacity and reliability. Those factors drive patronage.
The permanence of the infrastructure can give confidence to passengers, eg if its on a class A or B ROW, you psychologically feel less likely to encounter a delay, and that attracts users.
Better infrastructure can also make the service feel more pleasant.

Disadvantages are the cost, the space needed, and the lack of guarantees the infrastructure will actually have the level of service.

Development Patterns

This means urban planning that gives public and active transport a chance to succeed. Of course, all development can generate new car travel demand too, but if development is happening regardless, how can the development be done to make it easier for residents to pick other modes so they aren't locked into the car?  Advantages of this approach are making services and infrastructure more viable by giving a better customer base, and reducing the rate roads need to be built as a result.
Disadvantages are that it can be a slow process, some people complain about increased density/road diets, and a lot of the cities have large areas already built at low density and won't be nuked anytime soon, so we are stuck with their flaws.

How do these factors interact in the Australian context?
Below figures came from this thread
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=15443.0

What I have done is converted PT patronage into a figure per capita. This is a useful measure because there are examples everywhere of cities big or small that get good patronage. A city like Los Angeles can have a huge population and get poor PT patronage. A city like Vancouver can be fairly small and get good PT patronage.

Trips per capita

SYD - 117
MEL – 79
PER – 58
ADL – 43
SEQ – 40
ACT – 37.5

You can see certain cities achieve double or triple the patronage of other cities at the bottom of the list.
IMO its no good comparing with just one city, you risk tunnel vision if you do that.

Here's my take on each.

SYD – Top of the class. No doubting they have built a ton of infrastructure, not just the metros and LR, but the whole rail clearways programme.
Service levels, again they have really got their act together, in the east at least, click on any bus stop in google maps, 10 min off peak frequency is the norm now.
Development patterns seem to much better match the rail system, and the city is really becoming dense in some areas. A lot of the older suburbs were built around trams so are inherently transit friendly, even though its a bus these days.

MEL – Doing decently. They benefit historically from a lot of infrastructure, for a lot of Melbourne youre never that far from rail, and in the inner burbs the trams are comprehensive.
Some sprawl is eroding that. Density around PT is fairy commonplace these days, and a lot of older terrace suburbs were naturally pt friendly.

PER- Runs good services, but has also been investing heavily in new infrastructure to bring rail to the masses, eg Mandurah and Joondalup line . Development is 'okay', eg they do some TOD around stations and make an attempt, but its still a very sprawly city, which is why SYD has double the trips per capita.

ADL – Services are ok, a lot of the city is covered by go zones so the buses are passable, and the lack of urban freeways until recently probably helped PT.  The Adelaide hills limtied sprawl, and at least the sprawl followed the rail. Overall city is low density. Rail was largley ignored as a mode and infrastruture improvement was terribly managed.

SEQ- Mixed bag. We don't really have a great deal of TOD, and new suburbs dont really bother with it either. Some areas with good services, but they are the exception not the rule. Some great infrastructure like the busways and glink, with rail stuck in a timewarp. There's nothing we really exceed at, hence being 2nd last place.

ACT – Historically very sprawling and car oriented, though some attempts to densify. Investment in LR has grown patronage, as have the rapid buses. But ultimatley their development patterns will keep them locked into bottom of the class for years.