Senate report: ... public passenger transport infrastructure and services

[ozbob]

Investment of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transport infrastructure and services

20 August 2009

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/public_transport/report/index.htm

PDFs can be accessed from the above link

Web based text --> http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/public_transport/report/b01.htm

Significant increases in urban public transport use in recent years have caused complaints about overcrowding and focussed attention on the need for improvement. Problems of urban traffic congestion have had renewed attention since the publication of a 2007 report which projects a greatly increased congestion cost in future under business as usual assumptions.[1] Rising oil prices and changing climate have also increased the demand upon and the need for public transport.

The detrimental health effects of inactive, car-dependent lifestyles have had increased attention in recent years as part of the discussion of the 'obesity epidemic'.

In the committee's view these issues make the inquiry timely.

All submissions argued, and the committee agrees, that public transport and active transport create community benefits which justify supporting them with public subsidies.

Key issues for improving public transport include:

    * the need for stable strategic transport plans, with goals, actions and performance criteria detailed enough to be a basis for monitoring performance;
    * the need for best practice institutional arrangements so that the city's public transport service is planned and delivered as a fully integrated network;
    * the need to properly integrate transport planning with urban planning more generally ...

[ozbob]

Gold ...

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/public_transport/report/c03.htm

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 ...

[Jon Bryant]

Gold for sure.   The key is how do we get our Transport Planners and Ministers to accept this and stop saying " When this freeway, tunnel or bypass is completed congestion will be releaved".  It is a false statement and evident by every city in Australia being overly congested with traffic.

Press release with the quotes above plus this one

In Vancouver, alone among Canadian cities, the average time taken for the journey to work has been declining over the last 15 years as a result of policies to improve public transport and build no new major roads: Dr P. Mees, Committee Hansard 30 March 2009, p.62. Dr J. Stone, Committee Hansard 30 March 2009, p.49.

[#Metro]

Thanks for the report.

The problem is that roads are free to drive on.
Of course if you put roads everywhere and don't toll them, people are going to drive on them, regardless.
I think roads are needed. New roads are a necessary, but not sufficient means of improving transport.
I do not advocate ripping up the roads we have, or a blanket ban.
Especially when PT is at full capacity now, and the gov is effectively saying that they are broke.
I couldn't even swing my cat on the bus, train or ferry during peak hour. Roads have their place, but they should be subject to permanent congestion tolls (trial trial trial! ) during congestion hour and be placed selectively.

Translink should have the power to work with developers to get building TODs near stations.
Money from this, congestion tolls and other initiatives should not leak away to other areas of government, to be lost. It should be kept and spent on PT. Indeed, PT might actually become self-sustainable this way.

Subsidies are justified. However, I would like to see major things (busway, rail tunnels etc) funded, rather than just paying the bus to drive around. (If gov pulls the funding the service dies, but if you pull the funding on a new rail line or busway it will survive as it already has been built). And small, incremental things should also be considered, not just "blockbuster" expensive projects.
Bikeways aren't a big glorified thing, but something simple like this can increase the passenger catchments around stations.

Subsidy must be merit/need based and encourage efficiency to get the maximum service for us out of the money spent. (e.g. I do not want to see buses or trains electroplated in gold, so as to speak, or see route 66 run empty to the Gabba). Politicians should lose the power to set prices, and give it to an independent body. Unsustainably cheap fares, and poorly designed ticketing schemes designed to win votes today come at the expense of future improvements in the system, pushing the system towards the "cheap but nasty" scenario: [2.31, 2.32, 2.36] Incentive ticketing will work better if congestion tolling is rolled out on cars. Indeed there is a very strong case for imposing congestion charges [3.23,3.24]. But again, politics gets in the way.

* Roads aren't free, they're only free at point of use. I think petrol tax is a poor way of recovering cost because people's habits don't seem to change in response to petrol price hikes. Even if cars were pollution free (i.e. 100% electric) you would still have traffic jams.

[O_128]

Thanks for the report.

The problem is that roads are free to drive on.
Of course if you put roads everywhere and don't toll them, people are going to drive on them, regardless.
I think roads are needed. New roads are a necessary, but not sufficient means of improving transport.
I do not advocate ripping up the roads we have, or a blanket ban.
Especially when PT is at full capacity now, and the gov is effectively saying that they are broke.
I couldn't even swing my cat on the bus, train or ferry during peak hour. Roads have their place, but they should be subject to permanent congestion tolls (trial trial trial! ) during congestion hour and be placed selectively.

Translink should have the power to work with developers to get building TODs near stations.
Money from this, congestion tolls and other initiatives should not leak away to other areas of government, to be lost. It should be kept and spent on PT. Indeed, PT might actually become self-sustainable this way.

Subsidies are justified. However, I would like to see major things (busway, rail tunnels etc) funded, rather than just paying the bus to drive around. (If gov pulls the funding the service dies, but if you pull the funding on a new rail line or busway it will survive as it already has been built). And small, incremental things should also be considered, not just "blockbuster" expensive projects.
Bikeways aren't a big glorified thing, but something simple like this can increase the passenger catchments around stations.

Subsidy must be merit/need based and encourage efficiency to get the maximum service for us out of the money spent. (e.g. I do not want to see buses or trains electroplated in gold, so as to speak, or see route 66 run empty to the Gabba). Politicians should lose the power to set prices, and give it to an independent body. Unsustainably cheap fares, and poorly designed ticketing schemes designed to win votes today come at the expense of future improvements in the system, pushing the system towards the "cheap but nasty" scenario: [2.31, 2.32, 2.36] Incentive ticketing will work better if congestion tolling is rolled out on cars. Indeed there is a very strong case for imposing congestion charges [3.23,3.24]. But again, politics gets in the way.

* Roads aren't free, they're only free at point of use. I think petrol tax is a poor way of recovering cost because people's habits don't seem to change in response to petrol price hikes. Even if cars were pollution free (i.e. 100% electric) you would still have traffic jams.

raods arent free you pay rego. Why not do this with PT pay maybe an extra 200$ per person and then have free PT
r

[#Metro]

Rego is still a poor way to discourage car use because it bears no relation to how much or little you drive.
Even the cost of a car ($20 000 -$30 000) isn't discouragement.

Charging a membership fee IMHO is an interesting idea, and could encourage people to use it more.
This situation already exists (to a degree) when people buy go card and lock in $5-$10 as the "card fee".
You could also charge non-members a higher price, but that might get a bit complicated with incentive ticketing.
But it is worth exploring.

[ozbob]

In a media release concerning Springfield 


Media Release 6 June 2009

SEQ:  Richlands to Springfield railway line needed now!  Call for a public float!

Floated the idea of

"Why not have a public investment scheme to raise part capital to allow construction to proceed?  Match smart state rhetoric with smart actions!"

This comment generated some local interest.    Linking it with TODs and so forth might work ..

[somebody]

raods arent free you pay rego. Why not do this with PT pay maybe an extra 200$ per person and then have free PT
r

More importantly, you pay fuel excise.

[O_128]

What we really should be doing is allowing private companies specifically the european ones building all the new railways and giving them incentives to build in queensland for example free development over all there stations, tax cuts etc

[#Metro]

The residents seem willing to pay for it.
The businesses there, I would expect, would be of the same opinion, as well as the developer.

Companies seem quite happy to pay to build public tunnels, and these are paid off using a toll (i.e. NL Tunnel etc).
Air train raised funds for an airport rail line by levying a toll. This allowed it to be built sooner rather than later (and also, if it went broke, well ha ha, the state gov could wash its hands of the risk and simply offer to buy the line back (or take it?) at bargain basement prices).

If there is that much need, then the Springfield line should be brought forward and the following options considered:
1. Public fund-raising for a new line (but some people who didn't contribute will benefit, a bit unfair)
2. Special property tax/levy for the area (forces people to buy the line, might slow land sales so might not be popular with developer, but on the other hand, better transport would make the location more attractive.)
3. Declare a special translink zone around the precinct and charge a slight premium (i.e. toll the service) for trips in this area.
The Ipswich motorway is so bad, I think people will be falling over themselves to get on the trains.
4. Build TODs around the stations, and use the money for that to pay back the loan for the line.
5. Create a company which would own the rail line. People would take out memberships and get a discount on their trips. Everyone else would pay a penalty. This could be done using GoCard.

6. Do nothing, and wait for a few more years. I'm sure something else will pop up, the price of materials to build it will go up, and it will be pushed back to something like 2020.

At the end of the day, whether it is public, private, or charity money, we just need the cash to build the thing. Just some ideas.

[O_128]

Well i guess what im saying is that if a private companie built lets say the springfield line out of there own pocket then they would have serveral choices.
1. use there own trains as a shuttle to corinda.
2. Use there own trains and make a deal with translink about using the line to central
3. use the airtrain model of renting the trains

as with ticketing the company could charge whatever they want but the tickets would have to integrate with the rest of the translink network

[#Metro]

I think QR has some provision for trains from other operators being allowed to access the network (i.e. Freight).
But whether this would include access to stop at QR stations, and come under QR network control, and appear on QR timetables...

I have a feeling it would be like politely asking Telstra if you could run your own phone company off their network (which you legally can). One might encounter all sorts of inconveniences. Would such trains be allowed to stop at central? Would they be given network paths on an equal footing with QR services? Would they have to buy their own trains?

It doesn't have to just be private. It could be NGO, or a mix. It just needs to come under the roof of one organisation. It could be built, owned and operated and then after a time, transferred to the state.The costs for ticketing could be put on GoCard as well. You can use GoCard to pay for Airtrain.

It works for tunnels. Why not rail?
Maybe RailBOT should run it...

[O_128]

It works in europe so it can work here. The most likely solution that would benefit everyone is that the trains would run exprss form there line to the city. The develepers would then have to put some money towards upgrades at the city stations.

[ozbob]

Media Release 13th October 2009

Senate Committee Notes Freeways Increase Congestion

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport commuters has applauded the findings of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the investment of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transport infrastructure and services (1).

Robert Dow, spokesperson for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The standing committee reported that it is by now generally accepted, including by road authorities, that urban traffic congestion cannot be solved by building roads and that building roads encourages the growth of traffic and entrenches patterns of urban development that create high car use. They also noted that 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.?

?The inquiry also makes a number of key recommendations to increase the role of public and active transport in our cities as they, and only they, can decrease congestion.?

?We have spent 40 years trying to out-build congestion when we were really causing congestion to get worse.  In that same time Vancouver Canada for example has reduced the average time taken for the journey to work as a result of improvement to public transport and building no new major roads.?

?RAIL Back On Track calls for an urgent review of all freeway and major road projects throughout South East Queensland including the Kenmore Bypass, Pacific Motorway Upgrades and Ipswich Motorway Upgrade to name just a few.  Building these roads will only increase traffic congestion in SEQ.  The funding for these projects should be immediately redirected towards public and active transport major improvements."

"Urgent projects for rail that should be moved forward now include the triplication of the railway line from Darra to Redbank, triplication of the railway line from Kuraby to Beenleigh, duplication of the line from Beerburrum to Nambour.  Construction of the Petri to Kippa-Ring, and Richlands to Springfield railways.  Improved signalling and stabling facilities on the rail network and acceleration of the Cross River Rail project.?

?Further, the Department of Transport and Main Roads must review all it transport plans to address the incorrect modeling assumption that more road capacity reduces congestion.  Only this will correct the transport errors of the past that we are living with today?.

Reference:

1.   http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/public_transport/report/report.pdf

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org