Article: Transport study derails thinking on outer suburbs

[ozbob]

From the Melbourne Age click here!

Transport study derails thinking on outer suburbs

Transport study derails thinking on outer suburbs
Andrew West
January 5, 2011

RESIDENTS in the outer suburbs should not have to wait for higher housing densities before getting better public transport, according to research that could defuse one of the most bitter controversies in urban planning.

In a paper for the journal Australian Planner, Dr John Stone, of the University of Melbourne, and Dr Paul Mees, of RMIT University, argue that many city dwellers have been presented with a false choice - live in apartments and enjoy good public transport or retain the house and land and rely on cars.

''Many planners, and other commentators on urban issues, appear to believe that getting significantly more people on public transport will not be possible until massive changes in suburban densities are achieved,'' they write.

''The evidence challenges this view.''

Their study - which is part of a collection being prepared for the Council of Australian Governments on the dangers of relying on diminishing supplies of oil - finds that cities with densities comparable with Melbourne and Sydney, such as Toronto, Ottawa and greater New York, have better public transport than Australia's two biggest cities.

While greater New York, not just the skyscraper-dominated Manhattan, has 20.5 people to the hectare, Sydney has 20.4 people.

Melbourne, with 15.7 people to the hectare, has only slightly lower density than Ottawa, with 17.2 people.

Their research compares public transport in similar North American cities, and some European cities, such as suburban Zurich in Switzerland, but not in the extremely dense cities of Asia, such as Hong Kong and Tokyo.

Dr Mees said higher densities did not always mean better mass transit, citing the relatively low rail and bus use in Los Angeles, even though it is the most densely populated city in the United States.

''There is no doubt that a compact and connected urban form enhances the potential for oil-free mobility through walking, cycling, and greater public transport use,'' the authors write.

''However, we ... argue that it is not necessary to intensify land-use across the whole city before significant improvement in both patronage and economic efficiency of public transport becomes possible.''

The keys to increasing public transport use in outer suburbs are more frequent buses, running at least every 10-15 minutes, and not just in peak hour; better co-ordination with rail services; more convenient transfers; and fares that allow free transfers between modes.

The authors argue that most residents of Australian cities ''will continue to live in houses and suburban subdivisions that are already built''.

''Alternatives to the car will need to be effective at existing urban residential densities''.

[Stillwater]

Quote from Dr Paul Mees: "The keys to increasing public transport use in outer suburbs are more frequent buses, running at least every 10-15 minutes, and not just in peak hour; better co-ordination with rail services; more convenient transfers; and fares that allow free transfers between modes."

Can the arguments put by some that Dr Paul Mees is 'out there' in his thinking, or is 'too radical' be sustained, when he pushes the line put frequently in a number of posts on this site?

And, look, his research has an international perspective in order to sift our experiences that have application to Australia: "Their research compares public transport in similar North American cities, and some European cities, such as suburban Zurich in Switzerland, but not in the extremely dense cities of Asia, such as Hong Kong and Tokyo."

Yep, better not contemplate Dr Paul Mees as someone to address a public forum in Brisbane on public transport issues, they argue.

[#Metro]

We now have real world proof this is true: http://www.thredbo-conference-series.org/downloads/thredbo10_papers/thredbo10-themeA-Warren.pdf

Our BUZ routes patronage has gone through the roof, and density increases (which there have been none!) cannot explain it.
The increases happen too fast (patronage rockets within ~3 months or so).
TOD (of which there are none) cannot explain it either.
The busway also cannot explain it either because 199,  345 and 444 only pass through 1 or 2 busway stations.

It's what we knew all along: FREQUENCY + CONNECTIONS + SCOPE OF HOURS

[Jonno]

It proves that PT is a supply issue to a demand one.  Our planners are establishing artificial demand ceilings and the providing poor supply for even that limited demand.

[Stillwater]

The last sentence, TT, makes my point.  And, as you also point out, the issues revolve around taxation.  However, to be more precise, the issue is the DIVISION of taxation.  States charge high fees for licences and registration because these generate STATE revenues, whereas fuel excise generates funding for the federal government, which then redistributes a proportion of this funding (not all of it hypothecated) to states and councils for roads (note: roads).  None for PT.  States and councils dutifully devise road-based transport solutions to access these funds.  These solutions may not be the most efficient for moving people and goods.
States are not going to introduce reduced, or nominal, charges for licences and rego because they would forego much-needed revenue which is placed at the discretion of the states.
The ability of the states to 'buy in' to gaining of a slice of revenue from fuel sales has been closed off.
In 1996 97, the states raised $5.2 billion from business franchise fees on fuel, alcohol and tobacco retailers. However, the 1997 High Court decision in Ha v New South Wales (1997) 189 CLR 465 ruled that state franchise fees on tobacco were unconstitutional and, in doing so, cast doubt on the constitutionality of other state franchise fees (i.e. petrol).
At the request of the States, the federal government implemented safety net arrangements to effectively collect franchise fee revenue on behalf of the states. This revenue was collected though higher rates of excise and wholesale sales tax on the relevant products, and paid to the states. These payments were subsumed into The New Tax System package from 1 July 2000.
States are responsible for railways and public transport (refer the Constitution, which the states approved – they are the creator of the Frankenstein that is the federal government), yet they have been locked out of the substantial excise windfall from fuel sales, save for the dribble of revenue that comes from the feds with strings attached, namely that the money must be spent on roads.
See http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/esp/index.aspx
Federal rail spending is allocated to interstate freight routes in keeping with the constitutional authority that it must foster interstate trade and commerce.  It is this provision that allows the federal government to fund national highways.
Relevant sections of the Constitution:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter4.htm
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par5cha1.htm
In Chapter 5, states retain ownership and control of the railways.  For the Commonwealth to manage the interstate network and pay for its upgrade, the federal government has formed a private company, the Australian Rail Track Corporation, which leases state-owned track on 99-year leases.  The constitutional provisions are upheld, while still allowing the Commonwealth to make payment for train line improvements – but only in respect of freight (interstate trade and commerce).