Article: Riding Public Transit Saves Individuals $9,242 Annually

[WTN]

I live in Milton and I work at Geebung. Actually my train trip is 30 minutes, not 20minutes. Relying on public transport is not at all stress free.

Getting stuck in traffic jams/accidents are far from stress free either, should you come across those. Neither is spending 10+ minutes driving in the carpark looking for a space. They're my biggest annoyances for the times where I'm asked to drive (someone else's car). These factors also make public transport more attractive.

For the record, I'm lucky enough to have a 15 minute express bus trip to work with very short walks on either end. I don't need a car, so I don't have one. There's a few carless folks on this forum.

[ButFli]

But Ozbob, we are talking about traffic congestion, not environmental friendliness per se. Just to throw a spanner in the works I've got a report here that says the average resident of Los Angeles generates less carbon dioxide emissions than the average resident of New York City. What is going on there?

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/05_carbon_footprint_sarzynski/metroprofiles.pdf

If PT is the great congestion buster that it is being held out to be, why is one of the great PT cities of the world so congested? I am genuinely curious.

[ButFli]

I might just throw this interesting fact if I may...

Levels of public transport use vary considerably around the world. An International Union of Public Transport (UITP) study found that the rate of public transport use in selected Australian and New Zealand cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Wellington) was relatively low by world standards, with an average of 5% of all trips made using public transport. Cities in the United States (USA) such as Los Angeles and New York recorded similarly low rates (3% of all trips).

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Chapter10102008

That fact is ridiculously misleading. The way it is quoted would make you think that 3% of all trips in New York and 3% of all trips in LA are made by public transport. The way the statistic was calculated means it cannot be used to say that. Ten cities in the USA were chosen and the data from each of them was combined and the 3% figure was arrived at. The 3% is the average across all ten cities. Without analysing the data from LA and NYC separately there is no way to tell what the PT use in those cities is. Every study I have seen that does analyse NYC's data says PT use is a lot higher - above 50%.

[#Metro]

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/05_carbon_footprint_sarzynski/metroprofiles.pdf

I wonder how were the "Cities" or "metropolitain" defined?
City boundaries are completely arbitrary. We can see this when we talk about 'Brisbane'. For the Lord Mayor, Brisbane is the BCC area. or we could be talking about the CBD or the CBD + Inner 5km suburbs, or the 'Statistical Division' of Brisbane which includes Logan City...

[#Metro]

That fact is ridiculously misleading. The way it is quoted would make you think that 3% of all trips in New York and 3% of all trips in LA are made by public transport. The way the statistic was calculated means it cannot be used to say that. Ten cities in the USA were chosen and the data from each of them was combined and the 3% figure was arrived at. The 3% is the average across all ten cities. Without analysing the data from LA and NYC separately there is no way to tell what the PT use in those cities is. Every study I have seen that does analyse NYC's data says PT use is a lot higher - above 50%.

I think we have to be extremely careful with these statistics, otherwise they could turn into 'smiley' statistics.
What is the purpose of these statistics and what are we trying to find out and do with them? Unfortunately, most statistics I see nowadays have been co-opted into the PR machines and used as if they were some unbiased, objective truth in its unquestionably purest form, descended from heaven with zero assumptions.

I'm critical of the peak hour mode share statistics. A good public transport system is used ALL DAY for ALL TYPES OF TRIPS and shows how quality the system is; therefore 24 hour mode share is the one I would look at if I were assessing how good a PT system was.

[#Metro]

I would like to say this to Mobility:

If I had a car I could drive to work in 20 minutes using the inner city bypass. My train trip alone takes that long and walking from home to station, waiting for train and walking from station to workplace takes that long again.

If cars are that good, and public transport is so bad as you make it out to be why don't you just drive?
Clearly, by your own arguments, it would be cheaper, better, faster and more convenient for you.
And for some people it will be. And it sounds like you would be one of those people.

Is it our fault that your roads are so bad?
You could get a cheap second hand car, fill up with fuel, jump on Milton Road or Coronation Drive
then get on to the ICB and head to either the Gateway Motorway (tolls) or Gympie Road and get to Geebung.

[#Metro]

We can eliminate many of them by eliminating the cause. In one case in Brisbane, replacement of a
roundabout at a five-way intersection with traffic lights caused traffic to bank up for streets
further back every day. So in this case, congestion was obviously nothing to do with too many cars
being on the road. It was simply a local effect caused by a local problem.

Not our department. TMR and RACQ handles suggestions like this.

Increasing road space or efficiency does not encourage more people to drive. Roads are upgraded to
meet the current (or predicted) demands.

Disagree. What is the purpose of duplicating the Gateway Motorway then? So the new lanes can be empty? Really?
Gee. Roads must be the only product in the world whose makers claim that if they make a better product, they won't get
more customers!!! A clear violation of economics 101: Supply and demand.

Your underlying assumption is that road use in one area will continue to increase steeply and that
congestion is due solely to too many people driving, which is false. Congestion is due to poor road
design. But say it is true - the number of commuters goes on increasing, more road is built,
allowing more people to travel, which they do, then more road needs to be built and so on. Why does
this not also apply to public transport, or bicycling or walking? Why won't travel increase if we
use those, requiring more infrastructure and facilities to be built, allowing more people to travel
on it, and so on? Why does this only happen with cars and roads?

Actually the best way to increase road speeds it to increase public transport use. The SE busway is equivalent to 7 lanes of traffic during peak hour. The second thing, is that people DO catch public transport as more services are put on. The BUZ is clear proof that if you put the services on, then people will catch them. Well supported by Mohring and Mees.

Rail infrastructure is far more expensive per passenger mile than roads.

It depends on how well traveled that piece of rail is. Of course if you build rail and then only run services every 30 minutes over it!
Physical context and practicalities of location are also ignored. Just look at any city which has a transit strike- the city shuts down.

How do you get successful businesses and productive workplaces without easy access for employees and
customers? Car parking is a good use as any other kind of business or any workplace. What
constitutes a good use of space for you?

We'll let's look at a successful business and productive workplace. Microsoft in Redmond, Seattle, US.
Easy access for employees is done through their own private bus system. Clearly, Microsoft thought
that putting buses on (and funding it 100% too) would be worthwhile to say, building more and more car parks.

To help encourage employees to consider alternatives to single occupancy vehicle commuting, Microsoft sponsors several programs:

Private Bus System ("Connector"). To improve commuting opportunities and to reduce environmental impact of commuting, Microsoft has created and manages its own transportation bus system. For campus commuters who found public transportation wasn't satisfying their needs, Microsoft invested in the creation of one of the world's largest private bus systems. Employees can use the Connector, a free express bus service during morning and evening commute times between residential neighborhoods and the Redmond campus. With this system, Microsoft aims to reduce car traffic in the area by over 250,000 miles per week.

It is  not the market's fault parking prices are high, When prices rise, competition moves into the
market. Businesses can command prices only if they have an artificial monopoly in it, which is only
possible with some form of government intervention, or there is a naturally low supply. Higher
prices discourage customers, so it would be in the interests even of monopolists to respond with
more parking spaces. Presently something is preventing competition or ezpansion by present parking
providers.

This is because of the nature of land markets. Land is a factor of production. It is scarce.
When someone puts a building on a piece of land, it excludes someone else using it for another purpose.
For example, If I build a multi storey car park in the air, I forgo the possibility of putting an office tower there.
There is no 'land factory' churning out "more land" when the demand increases. Instead, the price increases.
The supply of land in the CBD is a fixed quantity. The thing preventing parking expansion is the tall building
next to the parking lot. It would cost too much to buy next door out, demolish it and then build a car park.
This is basic economics.

If there is government intervention, it is Brisbane City Council and their King George Square Car Park.
King George Square Car Park is consistently the cheapest car park in the entire CBD.

You are welcome to press your case, but I fear, arguing to us isn't somehow going to get more roads of road
upgrades to you. But we are working to make those people who catch or choose to use a bus, train or other public transport
as a means of mobility to have it improved though!!!

[#Metro]

From our friends at the Royal Automotive Club of Queensland (RACQ):

Public transport the best bet for Ekka visitors
6 Aug 2009

Parking spots will be at a premium in and around the Brisbane Ekka this year and visitors will be better off travelling to the show by public transport, according to the state's motoring club.

RACQ spokesman Jim Kershaw said the limited number of long-term on-street and off-street parking spots within walking distance of the exhibition were likely to go very quickly, leaving only those where a strict two-hour city limit applied.

"Motorists not familiar with city parking might not realise that there are extended clearway times during morning and afternoon rush-hours and two-hour street parking limits in the central traffic area," he said.

"The two-hour limit at un-metered spaces is a particular trap for visiting regional motorists.

"The last thing the RACQ wants is for visitors to have parking or even tow-away fees added to the expense of their visit to the Ekka."

Mr Kershaw said apart from parking problems, a number of large road projects in the vicinity of the RNA Showgrounds had impacted on traffic flow, leaving public transport the best option for Ekka patrons.

"All in all we feel the best thing Ekka patrons can do is forget about taking their cars into the city and instead take advantage of the city shuttle bus service or travel by train," he said.

http://www.racq.com.au/about_us/news_and_media/news_and_media/stories/public_transport_the_best_bet_for_ekka_visitors

[ozbob]

New York City has road congestion because of the population and the general nature of the American commute.  The figures in terms of public transport use for residents of NYC speak for themselves, they choose the sensible option.  You cannot stop people driving, particularly when accustomed to that who visit.  Obviously public transport reduces congestion.  If we didn't have public transport all those people would be on the roads and congestion would be worse.  Simple.  The majority of trips to and from the Brisbane CBD are by public transport.  Road congestion is troublesome, would it be better without public transport? Of course not. So far the solution has been more roads essentially.  That paradigm has failed IMHO, the real solution is sustainable mass transit of a frequency and accessibility that encourages maximal use.  Public transport in south-east Queensland has a long way to go to meet that but at long last there is a recognition that is needed eg. Connecting SEQ 2031.

:bi

[somebody]

One other point we haven't made yet is that the majority of PT use occurs in peaks.  Even if only 7% of trips are by PT, pushing all these PT users into car use would cause a significant increase in peak congestion.

[colinw]

What's with all the LA bashing? Has anyone actually been to LA? Yes, it's a sh%t hole. Yes, they seem to have massive roads going every which way. I am yet to see any evidence of this real bad congestion problem they are supposedly crippled by, though. LA does have more of a problem with smog than most cities but that is due to weather and geography rather than an actual car or road problem. LA does have a reputation of having bad traffic, but their traffic jams are nothing compared other "world cities". At least in LA the cars keep moving.

That agrees quite closely with my own experience of LA, including the "sh%t hole" comment.

The freeways were huge, impressive, but generally kept moving.  Very slowly in some cases, but they did move.

Air quality was a major problem, in the time I spent there (3 weeks, for a work training course) I could not get used to the sky being a kind of faded yellow colour overhead.  I also developed a scratchy dry cough that wouldn't go away the whole time I was there.

On the plus side, the public transport in LA was nowhere near as bad as I had been led to expect.  The Metro Light Rail (blue line to Long Beach) was very impressive, and well patronised.  Fares were cheap.  The Red Line was as well used as any underground rail system I've ever been on, it is a pity it doesn't extend further.

That was a few years ago, before the Gold Line even started construction, and the MetroLink heavy rail using the freight trackage was in its infancy.  

Today, rail is taking on an increasingly important role in LA, and a couple of busways have also been built (Metro Orange Line is a busway).  The Gold Line has opened, MetroLink is carrying increasing numbers of commuters, the Expo line is under construction, a Gold Line extension is planned, and the decades long impasse preventing Red Line extension to Santa Monica appears to have been broken. Planning attention is now turning toward reinstating even more of the former Pacific Electric - the Purple Line is one such proposal. LA's transport future is rail based, although it will take a long time to replace what was lost with the demise of the Pacific Electric.

Far from bagging out LA as a negative example, Brisbane has much to learn from LA.  A city that went far further down the path of car dependency than we have, has learned the error if its ways, and is returning to the rails in a big way.  Our future probably looks similar - a sprawling conurbation along a coast line, criss crossed by freeways, but increasingly turning toward a mix of heavy rail, light rail, busways and street running buses as the solution to its transport problems.