Article: Those least likely to use public transport shouldering the cost

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Those least likely to use public transport shouldering the cost

Those least likely to use public transport shouldering the cost

People who can least afford it cover the bulk of the cost for a public transport system they hardly use, new analysis of census commuter data reveals.

According to figures from Urban Economics, public transport use drops off dramatically the further people live from the centre of Brisbane.

    The people who are paying the bulk of that subsidy are arguably the people who are more likely to be driving to work

But the finding follows a report that shows Brisbane's highest-paying jobs are concentrated in the CBD, even though most of Brisbane's employment opportunities exist in the suburbs.

It means people who use public transport the most are also more likely to earn more money, and people who use it the least are likely to earn less, according to urban planning analyst Ross Elliot.

And with a network that is designed around city to suburbs commutes - rather than intra-suburb travel - and charges people who live in the outer-rings more to travel into town, Mr Elliott said there was no easy fix.

And the issue is likely to be exacerbated by a 7.5 per cent fare hike expected in Tuesday's state budget which would lift the price of a return journey from Inala – where the median weekly household income is $727 – to the city from $10.26 a day to $12.56.

Mr Elliot said there was a need to stop focusing transport spending in the heart of the city.

"This is a public transport system that is heavily subsidised, and the people who are paying the bulk of that subsidy are arguably the people who are more likely to be driving to work," he said.

"However their petrol isn't subsidised, their car isn't subsidised, they are likely to be paying for parking, and they're probably earning lower incomes than those people who are using public transport the most.

"We've got to ask – who is benefiting from the spending?"

The analysis comes as Brisbane City Council prepares to hand over its review of the city's bus network operations to the state government, and funding squabbles over billion-dollar transport infrastructure such as Cross River Rail continue.

[BrizCommuter]

Not quite accurate. Shorter distance commuters would actually be less subsidised than long distance commuters, due to higher short distance fares/km.

[#Metro]

But the finding follows a report that shows Brisbane's highest-paying jobs are concentrated in the CBD, even though most of Brisbane's employment opportunities exist in the suburbs.

This is VERY interesting

[ozbob]

Media release 31st May 2013



SEQ: Smart State, Smart Bus?

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has said the Melbourne Smart Bus network is a model for improving connectivity for public transport in south-east Queensland (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The radial nature of the public transport in south-east Queensland makes it difficult for connections between suburbs.  To make a connection, passengers often have to transit via the CBD.  This is very inefficient and adds to costs; fares, infrastructure and time costs. (2)"

"The TransLink bus review was an attempt to improve connectivity.  Sadly, for Brisbane, the TransLink Bus review was put aside and Brisbane City Council have been allowed to continue with their failing bus network, which largely ignores the historical flaws with the Brisbane bus network design, which is high cost, competes with other modes, and has poor connectivity, particularly across suburbs."

"TransLink should put out to competitive tender a Smart Bus network for south-east Queensland. A Smart bus network is one that complements the radial train and bus network by providing ' cross-town ' connections along major arterial roads.  These Smart Bus routes have on road priority, long span of operation and frequent services, and provide better connections to the community (1)."

"The SmartBus network in Melbourne has been an overwhelming success (3).  Time for south-east Queensland Transport agencies to break the shackles of public transport mediocrity and inaction, and get on with the job of doing it right!"

"Smart State or late State? "

References:

1. SmartBus http://corp.ptv.vic.gov.au/projects/buses/smartbus/

2. Those least likely to use public transport shouldering the cost
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/those-least-likely-to-use-public-transport-shouldering-the-cost-20130530-2neho.html#ixzz2Uo9axcq8

3. SmartBus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmartBus

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2013/05/30/4451202/ptgraph-wide-620x349.jpg

Public transport mode shares of journeys to work (Census 2011)

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/those-least-likely-to-use-public-transport-shouldering-the-cost-20130530-2neho.html

[somebody]

Shows how much of a star for JTW Sydney is.

[SurfRail]

The Adelaide figures are interesting.  Adelaide's total PT patronage is only around 50 million across all modes. 

The Gold Coast figures are around 15 million for bus (having declined a bit recently), and around 3 million for rail for around 18 million total.  The bus numbers exclude the NSW services and may exclude some special event patronage, as that is only the TransLink patronage figure.

Adelaide population = approx 1.3m
Gold Coast population = approx 525K

Adelaide = around 37 trips per capita per annum
Gold Coast = around 34 trips per capita per annum

This is surprisingly close.  I expect they will remain roughly neck and neck as Adelaide will have a bit of a boom when the rail network is fully reopened and partially electrified, and we should have one too when the LRT is running.  The Gold Coast's population and density is also increasing at a greater rate than Adelaide.

The big difference appears to be in journey to work data.  Adelaide's is 10% from the table further up, where I have been told the Gold Coast is only about 3-4%.  Clearly the all-day high-frequency up and down the coastal corridor means a wider market is being tapped than just commuters heading to a CBD, and that should be a pretty instructive lesson.

[#Metro]

The writer does have important points:

* Public Transport in Brisbane is hugely subsidised, probably even more so than roads - $400 from every ratepayer in the city, then 75% subsidies on top of that. And it's money that's not really having an impact because it is being spent on waste, duplication, legacy routing, running everything to the CBD, inefficiency, shifting air around, politically profitable pet projects (Maroon CityGliders) etc.

* The Direct Service Network means all PT converges on the CBD. Who works in the CBD? CEOs, Large corporations, Banks, Finance houses, High end hotels, ritzy shops - these people can afford to drive and pay car parking fees. Industrial areas don't have good PT when they could.

[ozbob]

Interesting blog comments on this yarn ..

--> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/those-least-likely-to-use-public-transport-shouldering-the-cost-20130530-2neho.html#comments

[ozbob]

The fixes are obvious to most if not all, except the fiddle players on George ...

[somebody]

So what's the article trying to say?  That we should have less higher paying jobs in the CBD? 

[#Metro]

As I try and tell my dad, YOU may not use PT because it doesn't , but those who do leave the roads less congested for YOU so stop being selfish and say you shouldn't contribute.

I actually disagree with this. Here's why:

1. The current network is so ineffectiveness it is only for approximately 2 hours per day that we get the benefit of decent PT.

2. Public Transport does not reduce congestion. Any capacity increase, regardless of mode, induces more traffic. I have on the ground proof of this in the form of the SE Busway.

3. The amount of subsidies (75%) and high fares (highest in the world) plus rate levies (extortion at $400 per resident per year) to run air all around Brisbane is unjustifiable and ridiculously expensive for little benefit

4. Much money is spent on politically profitable projects like fancy new stations, 9 then free, things like maroon citygliders and running air around the city just so the symbolic nature of PT is preserved (along with votes) rather than it's actual utility. Again, politicians helping themselves rather than actually doing something useful.

5. A lot of this, due to network design, benefits people with very high income who can afford to pay and work in the CBD. Someone like me who is unemployed pays FULL PRICE, the intermittent nature of job interviews means that I DO NOT QUALIFY for '9 then free', and with buses all going to the city, I just can't get to the jobs in the suburbs. And I can prove that there are heaps of non-CBD jobs in Brisbane because I am the one applying for them!!

Politicians of all stripes and at all levels need a good long hard royal kick in the pants.

[Matt]

Lapdog,  I think point #2 is wrong, yes, capacity increases in some infrastructure, i.e. roads, bridges, tunnels, will cause an increase in takeup, but PT or rail in particular will decrease one person one car travel which will show up as less congestion over all, except the carriages may be fuller than they would have been, which is no biggie.

[SurfRail]

Non centralised cities, or probably depending on how you do it are not a good thing for PT as you may not have the mass flow corridors and you tend to try and have things going everywhere to deal with it. Perhaps more like Sydney where you have satellite cities in a circle'ish around CBD.

The exception is clearly linear cities like the Gold Coast which support a wide range of activities and travel demand in all directions all day long, because the main directions are "up" and "down".  You'll see from my numbers above that the Gold Coast and Adelaide are actually around neck and neck when it comes to PT patronage per capita, even though in Adelaide proportionately many more people are using PT to get to work. 

[techblitz]

Lapdog,  I think point #2 is wrong, yes, capacity increases in some infrastructure, i.e. roads, bridges, tunnels, will cause an increase in takeup, but PT or rail in particular will decrease one person one car travel which will show up as less congestion over all, except the carriages may be fuller than they would have been, which is no biggie.

Point one is wrong too....i put it at 4 hours at least per day of decent pt from 4-6pm and 7-9am where majority of routes have thier frequency increased and where patronage increases immensely.

[#Metro]

I would add another piece to the puzzel. Properties should also be levied a small fee according to their proximity to PT to help subsidise this service. Obviously some allowances would have to be made to address equity and fairness issues. But set at a reasonable price (not cost recovery) it brings more equity and user pays principals to the equation, for a service that for many households acts as a financial bonus to their property value.
Commenter
Observer
Location
Date and time
May 31, 2013, 10:02AM

Ummm... it already exists and it isn't small! It's $400 per year per rateable property and it is levied by the BCC. I'm surprised that not more ratepayers are outraged over this.

[#Metro]

Lapdog,  I think point #2 is wrong, yes, capacity increases in some infrastructure, i.e. roads, bridges, tunnels, will cause an increase in takeup, but PT or rail in particular will decrease one person one car travel which will show up as less congestion over all, except the carriages may be fuller than they would have been, which is no biggie.

Disagree. Increased supply is increased supply, whether that supply is in the form of increased road space or increased PT.

Proof:
The South East busway has 9 lanes worth of capacity (18 000 pphd bus lane / 2000 pphd car lane)

On the day immediately before the opening of the SE Busway, let's imagine that the SE freeway is congested. There are 4 lanes of peak hour congestion. We open the busway.

We can calculate how many cars will be on the freeway immediately after busway opening:

9 lanes of capacity - 4 lanes on freeway = negative 5 (implies that freeway is empty)

Therefore, if you are correct, I should be able to go to any bridge across the SE Freeway at the height of peak hour and see the freeway is completely empty.

Clearly this is wrong.

Public Transport does not reduce congestion. Any slots freed up on roads creates an incentive to consume that benefit, and that benefit is consumed by more trips generated, induced traffic, more development outside the city, people changing times to grab that free slot etc.

[techblitz]

So what's the article trying to say?  That we should have less higher paying jobs in the CBD? 

Yeah was thinking that myself....thats never gonna happen due to large multinationals setting up in the cbd for thier exclusive office views etc.....theyre basically saying better public transport for outer suburbs as thats where the most job opps are.

True to a sense but its the type of jobs that matter. Lets not forget the fact that a lot of workplaces in the outer would still require employees to have a licence and car due to shiftwork,emergency callins outside of public transport hours as well as emergency deliveries etc.Majority of cbd jobs dont require a vehicle.more shopping in the cbd,fitness centers etc etc.CBD workers get the priority unfortunately.

All roads must lead in. The only issue with the current bus network is duplication in the inner busway and gcl needs to be upped to sundays to make it a fulltime radial route.Statistics are showing that melbournes crosstown routes are performing quite well on sundays.

[#Metro]

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/07/what-does-transit-do-about-traffic-congestion.html

To my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong, no transit project or service has ever been the clear direct cause of a substantial drop in traffic congestion.  So claiming that a project you favor will reduce congestion is unwise; the data just don't support that claim.

Increasing supply does not reduce demand. What vehicle is used (car, bus, train) is not relevant IMHO.

[Gazza]

No rtt, if you closed the SEB it would just mean less motorized trips in Brisbane.

Basically,  in a city the freeways will be the first things to fill up, with PT taking spillover.

The amount of freeway and pt infrastructure available determines how much and how far people travel. Once you hit saturation no extra travel occurs and economic growth flatlines.